Southampton City Council staff announce details of industrial action

Daily Echo: Southampton Civic Centre Southampton Civic Centre

UNION members at Southampton City Council have announced they will begin indefinite industrial action this month.

As previously reported, members of Unison and Unite voted in favour of action in the face of wage cuts at the authority.

The action short-of-a-strike will include:


• Refusal to use private cars for Council work – this will include social workers, housing officers, environmental health officers.


• Ban on overtime working.


• Working to set hours. Not working unpaid hours.


• Working to contract / working to rule.


• Not covering for vacant posts.


• Working to strictly comply with Health and Safety regulations.

Furthermore, all union members are being called out on strike, for 'extended periods'.

The first section of staff to go out on strike will be the authority's refuse collectors. Other members of staff will join them at a later date.

UNISON Branch Secretary, Mike Tucker, said: “The industrial action will demonstrate that the council only functions because council workers work unpaid overtime, carry out duties they are not paid for and cover for jobs that have been cut.

"The selective strike action will mean key sections of the Council will be on strike for extended periods. It is council workers who keep the city running, not councillors.

"The industrial action we hope will bring the Conservative controlled Council back to the negotiating table. Only a negotiated settlement can avoid a summer of strikes and disruption.”

Comments (47)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

5:59pm Mon 16 May 11

Condor Man says...

Let them strike, if staff aren't working to HSE regulations they should be sacked anyway. Staff are only stopping car use because the ridiculous allowances they were getting have been stopped and I really hope they stick to the 37 hours per week and accrue no flexitime. SCC needs to stop staff getting in at 7.30 every morning and claiming a day off for spending the first hour chatting.
Let them strike, if staff aren't working to HSE regulations they should be sacked anyway. Staff are only stopping car use because the ridiculous allowances they were getting have been stopped and I really hope they stick to the 37 hours per week and accrue no flexitime. SCC needs to stop staff getting in at 7.30 every morning and claiming a day off for spending the first hour chatting. Condor Man

6:27pm Mon 16 May 11

Ant Smoking MP says...

Condor Man wrote:
Let them strike, if staff aren't working to HSE regulations they should be sacked anyway. Staff are only stopping car use because the ridiculous allowances they were getting have been stopped and I really hope they stick to the 37 hours per week and accrue no flexitime. SCC needs to stop staff getting in at 7.30 every morning and claiming a day off for spending the first hour chatting.
Absolute rubbish!!
.
Regarding HSE regulations, the article says "Working to STRICTLY COMPLY with Health and Safety regulations."
.
What part of "strictly apply" dont you understand?
[quote][p][bold]Condor Man[/bold] wrote: Let them strike, if staff aren't working to HSE regulations they should be sacked anyway. Staff are only stopping car use because the ridiculous allowances they were getting have been stopped and I really hope they stick to the 37 hours per week and accrue no flexitime. SCC needs to stop staff getting in at 7.30 every morning and claiming a day off for spending the first hour chatting.[/p][/quote]Absolute rubbish!! . Regarding HSE regulations, the article says "Working to STRICTLY COMPLY with Health and Safety regulations." . What part of "strictly apply" dont you understand? Ant Smoking MP

6:47pm Mon 16 May 11

bigmonkeyman says...

Go on then,jog on.Lets have a good clearout.They have no backing from me.As a private sector worker,i've effectivly had a pay cut the last 3 years on the trot.Why,as public sector should they not have the same?
Privatise the lot i say.
Go on then,jog on.Lets have a good clearout.They have no backing from me.As a private sector worker,i've effectivly had a pay cut the last 3 years on the trot.Why,as public sector should they not have the same? Privatise the lot i say. bigmonkeyman

6:50pm Mon 16 May 11

darune says...

Where is this Southamptin you talk about!!
Where is this Southamptin you talk about!! darune

6:57pm Mon 16 May 11

Condor Man says...

Ant Smoking MP wrote:
Condor Man wrote:
Let them strike, if staff aren't working to HSE regulations they should be sacked anyway. Staff are only stopping car use because the ridiculous allowances they were getting have been stopped and I really hope they stick to the 37 hours per week and accrue no flexitime. SCC needs to stop staff getting in at 7.30 every morning and claiming a day off for spending the first hour chatting.
Absolute rubbish!!
.
Regarding HSE regulations, the article says "Working to STRICTLY COMPLY with Health and Safety regulations."
.
What part of "strictly apply" dont you understand?
surely they should be doing that anyway? I'm afraid sympathy just isn't there.
[quote][p][bold]Ant Smoking MP[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Condor Man[/bold] wrote: Let them strike, if staff aren't working to HSE regulations they should be sacked anyway. Staff are only stopping car use because the ridiculous allowances they were getting have been stopped and I really hope they stick to the 37 hours per week and accrue no flexitime. SCC needs to stop staff getting in at 7.30 every morning and claiming a day off for spending the first hour chatting.[/p][/quote]Absolute rubbish!! . Regarding HSE regulations, the article says "Working to STRICTLY COMPLY with Health and Safety regulations." . What part of "strictly apply" dont you understand?[/p][/quote]surely they should be doing that anyway? I'm afraid sympathy just isn't there. Condor Man

7:04pm Mon 16 May 11

Just A Voice says...

I think this will be a waste of time, nothing will change Royston and his gang's minds, especially striking, that will only serve to turn public opinion against the council even more than it is already.

The legal challenge to the council changing contracts without proper consultation will be interesting and costly.

Cuts do need to be made, but the speed of those cuts is what I disagree with.

Although I fear nothing will change I do agree with the unions stance and their right to strike.

The council should use the reserves they accumulated over the past 10 years or sell off some of the art/paintings they have kept in the Civic vaults, most of the pieces have not seen the light of day in years,,, they wouldn't be missed by most people in the city, however services these enforced cuts will be.
I think this will be a waste of time, nothing will change Royston and his gang's minds, especially striking, that will only serve to turn public opinion against the council even more than it is already. The legal challenge to the council changing contracts without proper consultation will be interesting and costly. Cuts do need to be made, but the speed of those cuts is what I disagree with. Although I fear nothing will change I do agree with the unions stance and their right to strike. The council should use the reserves they accumulated over the past 10 years or sell off some of the art/paintings they have kept in the Civic vaults, most of the pieces have not seen the light of day in years,,, they wouldn't be missed by most people in the city, however services these enforced cuts will be. Just A Voice

7:40pm Mon 16 May 11

Eadwig says...

If they don't want to work for what's on offer, there are plenty who would be glad to replace them.... including me.
If they don't want to work for what's on offer, there are plenty who would be glad to replace them.... including me. Eadwig

7:40pm Mon 16 May 11

Bassett-Mikey says...

Let's stop ALL overtime right now for starters. Let's stop ALL recruiting now. Let's get a proper efficiency consultancy in to see how many levels of management can be removed, only paying them a percentage of the real savings, rather than the more traditional massive fees.
Let's take a look at the sickness contract, change it to be the same as the private sector. Let's offer a small bonus monthly for folk who dont take sick time - works for BA.
Lets get rid of expensive mayoral cars, or ensure they only go out on formal occasions of great import.
Let's get behind the cuts - we have to have them!
Let's stop ALL overtime right now for starters. Let's stop ALL recruiting now. Let's get a proper efficiency consultancy in to see how many levels of management can be removed, only paying them a percentage of the real savings, rather than the more traditional massive fees. Let's take a look at the sickness contract, change it to be the same as the private sector. Let's offer a small bonus monthly for folk who dont take sick time - works for BA. Lets get rid of expensive mayoral cars, or ensure they only go out on formal occasions of great import. Let's get behind the cuts - we have to have them! Bassett-Mikey

7:44pm Mon 16 May 11

THEKILLER says...

Sack them all. their lucky I have not had a income increase for 3 years
Working to rule,- so will see more work then !!!!
Ban on overtime - great the work can be in normal work time no dragging the work out to get overtime!!!
Sack them all. their lucky I have not had a income increase for 3 years Working to rule,- so will see more work then !!!! Ban on overtime - great the work can be in normal work time no dragging the work out to get overtime!!! THEKILLER

8:01pm Mon 16 May 11

Georgem says...

Condor Man wrote:
Ant Smoking MP wrote:
Condor Man wrote:
Let them strike, if staff aren't working to HSE regulations they should be sacked anyway. Staff are only stopping car use because the ridiculous allowances they were getting have been stopped and I really hope they stick to the 37 hours per week and accrue no flexitime. SCC needs to stop staff getting in at 7.30 every morning and claiming a day off for spending the first hour chatting.
Absolute rubbish!!
.
Regarding HSE regulations, the article says "Working to STRICTLY COMPLY with Health and Safety regulations."
.
What part of "strictly apply" dont you understand?
surely they should be doing that anyway? I'm afraid sympathy just isn't there.
Guaranteed that, were that to be the case, you'd be hear moaning about what a bunch of jobsworths they were, and whingeing about "political correctness gone mad" or "the PC brigade strike again".
[quote][p][bold]Condor Man[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ant Smoking MP[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Condor Man[/bold] wrote: Let them strike, if staff aren't working to HSE regulations they should be sacked anyway. Staff are only stopping car use because the ridiculous allowances they were getting have been stopped and I really hope they stick to the 37 hours per week and accrue no flexitime. SCC needs to stop staff getting in at 7.30 every morning and claiming a day off for spending the first hour chatting.[/p][/quote]Absolute rubbish!! . Regarding HSE regulations, the article says "Working to STRICTLY COMPLY with Health and Safety regulations." . What part of "strictly apply" dont you understand?[/p][/quote]surely they should be doing that anyway? I'm afraid sympathy just isn't there.[/p][/quote]Guaranteed that, were that to be the case, you'd be hear moaning about what a bunch of jobsworths they were, and whingeing about "political correctness gone mad" or "the PC brigade strike again". Georgem

8:02pm Mon 16 May 11

Georgem says...

bigmonkeyman wrote:
Go on then,jog on.Lets have a good clearout.They have no backing from me.As a private sector worker,i've effectivly had a pay cut the last 3 years on the trot.Why,as public sector should they not have the same?
Privatise the lot i say.
So what you're saying is, we should somehow artificially make the public and private sectors mirror one another, even though they actually don't, in reality? Ok, how?
[quote][p][bold]bigmonkeyman[/bold] wrote: Go on then,jog on.Lets have a good clearout.They have no backing from me.As a private sector worker,i've effectivly had a pay cut the last 3 years on the trot.Why,as public sector should they not have the same? Privatise the lot i say.[/p][/quote]So what you're saying is, we should somehow artificially make the public and private sectors mirror one another, even though they actually don't, in reality? Ok, how? Georgem

8:03pm Mon 16 May 11

George4th says...

The country's finances are in a mess thanks to the last government - and as bad as Greece, Portugal and Ireland in terms of GDP

The Council staff have no public sympathy. The Private sector went through all the pain from 3 years ago onwards and without hardly a word!

Look at the Public Sector bleating!!

If every person working for Southampton Council asked themselves the question "Do I give 100% to my job for the 37 hours I work here" the answers would be interesting!
Yes, some naturally work hard but having seen many at first hand, the majority do not!
(And many are badly managed)
The country's finances are in a mess thanks to the last government - and as bad as Greece, Portugal and Ireland in terms of GDP The Council staff have no public sympathy. The Private sector went through all the pain from 3 years ago onwards and without hardly a word! Look at the Public Sector bleating!! If every person working for Southampton Council asked themselves the question "Do I give 100% to my job for the 37 hours I work here" the answers would be interesting! Yes, some naturally work hard but having seen many at first hand, the majority do not! (And many are badly managed) George4th

8:36pm Mon 16 May 11

Linesman says...

George4th wrote:
The country's finances are in a mess thanks to the last government - and as bad as Greece, Portugal and Ireland in terms of GDP The Council staff have no public sympathy. The Private sector went through all the pain from 3 years ago onwards and without hardly a word! Look at the Public Sector bleating!! If every person working for Southampton Council asked themselves the question "Do I give 100% to my job for the 37 hours I work here" the answers would be interesting! Yes, some naturally work hard but having seen many at first hand, the majority do not! (And many are badly managed)
Thanks to the last government bailing out the banks and building societies so that houses were not repossessed.

Thanks to the last government bailing out local and city councils who invested their money in Icelandic Banks, and would have gone bankrupt without that help.

Why was this necessary?

Because a couple of banks in the US went 'belly up' for making reckless loans, and the domino effect spread virtually world-wide.

Perhaps you could remind us what alternative action the opposition parties proposed at the time to deal with this International financial crisis.

Personally, I can't recall them offering any words of advice or a different way of dealing with the problem.

Do you remember George4th?
[quote][p][bold]George4th[/bold] wrote: The country's finances are in a mess thanks to the last government - and as bad as Greece, Portugal and Ireland in terms of GDP The Council staff have no public sympathy. The Private sector went through all the pain from 3 years ago onwards and without hardly a word! Look at the Public Sector bleating!! If every person working for Southampton Council asked themselves the question "Do I give 100% to my job for the 37 hours I work here" the answers would be interesting! Yes, some naturally work hard but having seen many at first hand, the majority do not! (And many are badly managed)[/p][/quote]Thanks to the last government bailing out the banks and building societies so that houses were not repossessed. Thanks to the last government bailing out local and city councils who invested their money in Icelandic Banks, and would have gone bankrupt without that help. Why was this necessary? Because a couple of banks in the US went 'belly up' for making reckless loans, and the domino effect spread virtually world-wide. Perhaps you could remind us what alternative action the opposition parties proposed at the time to deal with this International financial crisis. Personally, I can't recall them offering any words of advice or a different way of dealing with the problem. Do you remember George4th? Linesman

8:51pm Mon 16 May 11

Just A Voice says...

George4th wrote:
The country's finances are in a mess thanks to the last government - and as bad as Greece, Portugal and Ireland in terms of GDP

The Council staff have no public sympathy. The Private sector went through all the pain from 3 years ago onwards and without hardly a word!

Look at the Public Sector bleating!!

If every person working for Southampton Council asked themselves the question "Do I give 100% to my job for the 37 hours I work here" the answers would be interesting!
Yes, some naturally work hard but having seen many at first hand, the majority do not!
(And many are badly managed)
If we are in the same position as Greece, Portugal and Ireland, why don't we go cap in hand to the EU to bail us out, instead of them coming to us to bail them out, yes we may get interest from the loans, however when your apparently skint and you having supposedly nothing in the wallet, the last thing you do is lend or bail out other countries, I'm quite sure they wouldn't do the same for us.

Go ask any worker if they give 100% for 37 hours a week, I'm quite sure if they're honest they would say the same as many worker, a resounding no not really.
[quote][p][bold]George4th[/bold] wrote: The country's finances are in a mess thanks to the last government - and as bad as Greece, Portugal and Ireland in terms of GDP The Council staff have no public sympathy. The Private sector went through all the pain from 3 years ago onwards and without hardly a word! Look at the Public Sector bleating!! If every person working for Southampton Council asked themselves the question "Do I give 100% to my job for the 37 hours I work here" the answers would be interesting! Yes, some naturally work hard but having seen many at first hand, the majority do not! (And many are badly managed)[/p][/quote]If we are in the same position as Greece, Portugal and Ireland, why don't we go cap in hand to the EU to bail us out, instead of them coming to us to bail them out, yes we may get interest from the loans, however when your apparently skint and you having supposedly nothing in the wallet, the last thing you do is lend or bail out other countries, I'm quite sure they wouldn't do the same for us. Go ask any worker if they give 100% for 37 hours a week, I'm quite sure if they're honest they would say the same as many worker, a resounding no not really. Just A Voice

8:56pm Mon 16 May 11

Georgem says...

Linesman wrote:
George4th wrote:
The country's finances are in a mess thanks to the last government - and as bad as Greece, Portugal and Ireland in terms of GDP The Council staff have no public sympathy. The Private sector went through all the pain from 3 years ago onwards and without hardly a word! Look at the Public Sector bleating!! If every person working for Southampton Council asked themselves the question "Do I give 100% to my job for the 37 hours I work here" the answers would be interesting! Yes, some naturally work hard but having seen many at first hand, the majority do not! (And many are badly managed)
Thanks to the last government bailing out the banks and building societies so that houses were not repossessed.

Thanks to the last government bailing out local and city councils who invested their money in Icelandic Banks, and would have gone bankrupt without that help.

Why was this necessary?

Because a couple of banks in the US went 'belly up' for making reckless loans, and the domino effect spread virtually world-wide.

Perhaps you could remind us what alternative action the opposition parties proposed at the time to deal with this International financial crisis.

Personally, I can't recall them offering any words of advice or a different way of dealing with the problem.

Do you remember George4th?
If it was just a matter of a couple of US banks being reckless, the crisis wouldn't have hit. Fact is, our own banks were more than happy to join in the party, slicing and re-packaging those reckless loans in ever-more-reckless new financial instruments that nobody really understood, in pursuit of bigger bonuses. Blame it all on those 2 banks all you like, but pretty much every bank bitten by the crisis were bitten because they ignored the massive risks those instruments represented. Notice, for instance, how JP Morgan weren't hit very hard. They saw the risks, and passed on the party.

As for whatever the last government did, which government was it which deregulated banking to the degree where this could all happen? Clue: not Labour.
[quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]George4th[/bold] wrote: The country's finances are in a mess thanks to the last government - and as bad as Greece, Portugal and Ireland in terms of GDP The Council staff have no public sympathy. The Private sector went through all the pain from 3 years ago onwards and without hardly a word! Look at the Public Sector bleating!! If every person working for Southampton Council asked themselves the question "Do I give 100% to my job for the 37 hours I work here" the answers would be interesting! Yes, some naturally work hard but having seen many at first hand, the majority do not! (And many are badly managed)[/p][/quote]Thanks to the last government bailing out the banks and building societies so that houses were not repossessed. Thanks to the last government bailing out local and city councils who invested their money in Icelandic Banks, and would have gone bankrupt without that help. Why was this necessary? Because a couple of banks in the US went 'belly up' for making reckless loans, and the domino effect spread virtually world-wide. Perhaps you could remind us what alternative action the opposition parties proposed at the time to deal with this International financial crisis. Personally, I can't recall them offering any words of advice or a different way of dealing with the problem. Do you remember George4th?[/p][/quote]If it was just a matter of a couple of US banks being reckless, the crisis wouldn't have hit. Fact is, our own banks were more than happy to join in the party, slicing and re-packaging those reckless loans in ever-more-reckless new financial instruments that nobody really understood, in pursuit of bigger bonuses. Blame it all on those 2 banks all you like, but pretty much every bank bitten by the crisis were bitten because they ignored the massive risks those instruments represented. Notice, for instance, how JP Morgan weren't hit very hard. They saw the risks, and passed on the party. As for whatever the last government did, which government was it which deregulated banking to the degree where this could all happen? Clue: not Labour. Georgem

8:56pm Mon 16 May 11

Maine Lobster says...

Condor Man wrote:
Let them strike, if staff aren't working to HSE regulations they should be sacked anyway. Staff are only stopping car use because the ridiculous allowances they were getting have been stopped and I really hope they stick to the 37 hours per week and accrue no flexitime. SCC needs to stop staff getting in at 7.30 every morning and claiming a day off for spending the first hour chatting.
Once again the ignorance of you armchair critics is astounding. The "ridiculous allowances" you claim are in fact very modest and are for vehicles provided by staff to deliver Council services at a much cheaper rate than that done in the private sector for company car users, for example. Staff who use their cars are contractually required to do so for which their contract of employment agrees to pay them a monthly sum and mileage allowance. Providing a car enables the work to be done at a much more efficient rate than using public transport and at a much cheaper rate than using taxis, as was proved during an industrial dispute over the same issue in 2003. For this allowance, the employee has to make sure the vehicle is available for Council use through regular maintenance, insure it for business purposes at considerable additional cost and often employees have to take out finance to ensure the vehicle they provide will be reliable enough to get the job done. Having done all this, the Council then decides to breach the contract of employment and withdraw the allowance. That's fair and reasonable is it?
Car users have to travel all over the city and sometimes outside of it to visit clients or city residents, often transporting people or equipment in the process. Others work outside of office hours on call out and need their vehicle then. The vehicles also often provide the means of a quick exit when various situations turn nasty. Think about that? Council employees get murdered on duty while visiting client's homes. Remember the care worker in Townhill Park? Had it not been for the ability to search for her car once she was identified as missing, her murder and the perpetrator may not have been aprehended.
The car allowances paid are a part of a national agreement over terms and conditions. The breach of that agreement is what is fundamentally wrong, not those employees who have a right to expect to be paid their contracted terms. To top it all, the cuts in car allowances are in addition to the wages cuts being forced on staff so those employees are often on a cut in salary approaching 9% or 10%, not the "small pay cut" you often see printed as comment in the Daily Echo.
As for your accusation against those who come in early, you ought to know that in many cases this enables them to do far more work in the first hour when the phones are not ringing than through the rest of the working day when the are continual conflicting demands. Many staff work far more hours than they can claim in flexi time so your ill informed and customary sniping over the people who serve this city really holds no credibility.
[quote][p][bold]Condor Man[/bold] wrote: Let them strike, if staff aren't working to HSE regulations they should be sacked anyway. Staff are only stopping car use because the ridiculous allowances they were getting have been stopped and I really hope they stick to the 37 hours per week and accrue no flexitime. SCC needs to stop staff getting in at 7.30 every morning and claiming a day off for spending the first hour chatting.[/p][/quote]Once again the ignorance of you armchair critics is astounding. The "ridiculous allowances" you claim are in fact very modest and are for vehicles provided by staff to deliver Council services at a much cheaper rate than that done in the private sector for company car users, for example. Staff who use their cars are contractually required to do so for which their contract of employment agrees to pay them a monthly sum and mileage allowance. Providing a car enables the work to be done at a much more efficient rate than using public transport and at a much cheaper rate than using taxis, as was proved during an industrial dispute over the same issue in 2003. For this allowance, the employee has to make sure the vehicle is available for Council use through regular maintenance, insure it for business purposes at considerable additional cost and often employees have to take out finance to ensure the vehicle they provide will be reliable enough to get the job done. Having done all this, the Council then decides to breach the contract of employment and withdraw the allowance. That's fair and reasonable is it? Car users have to travel all over the city and sometimes outside of it to visit clients or city residents, often transporting people or equipment in the process. Others work outside of office hours on call out and need their vehicle then. The vehicles also often provide the means of a quick exit when various situations turn nasty. Think about that? Council employees get murdered on duty while visiting client's homes. Remember the care worker in Townhill Park? Had it not been for the ability to search for her car once she was identified as missing, her murder and the perpetrator may not have been aprehended. The car allowances paid are a part of a national agreement over terms and conditions. The breach of that agreement is what is fundamentally wrong, not those employees who have a right to expect to be paid their contracted terms. To top it all, the cuts in car allowances are in addition to the wages cuts being forced on staff so those employees are often on a cut in salary approaching 9% or 10%, not the "small pay cut" you often see printed as comment in the Daily Echo. As for your accusation against those who come in early, you ought to know that in many cases this enables them to do far more work in the first hour when the phones are not ringing than through the rest of the working day when the are continual conflicting demands. Many staff work far more hours than they can claim in flexi time so your ill informed and customary sniping over the people who serve this city really holds no credibility. Maine Lobster

9:24pm Mon 16 May 11

Linesman says...

Georgem wrote:
Linesman wrote:
George4th wrote: The country's finances are in a mess thanks to the last government - and as bad as Greece, Portugal and Ireland in terms of GDP The Council staff have no public sympathy. The Private sector went through all the pain from 3 years ago onwards and without hardly a word! Look at the Public Sector bleating!! If every person working for Southampton Council asked themselves the question "Do I give 100% to my job for the 37 hours I work here" the answers would be interesting! Yes, some naturally work hard but having seen many at first hand, the majority do not! (And many are badly managed)
Thanks to the last government bailing out the banks and building societies so that houses were not repossessed. Thanks to the last government bailing out local and city councils who invested their money in Icelandic Banks, and would have gone bankrupt without that help. Why was this necessary? Because a couple of banks in the US went 'belly up' for making reckless loans, and the domino effect spread virtually world-wide. Perhaps you could remind us what alternative action the opposition parties proposed at the time to deal with this International financial crisis. Personally, I can't recall them offering any words of advice or a different way of dealing with the problem. Do you remember George4th?
If it was just a matter of a couple of US banks being reckless, the crisis wouldn't have hit. Fact is, our own banks were more than happy to join in the party, slicing and re-packaging those reckless loans in ever-more-reckless new financial instruments that nobody really understood, in pursuit of bigger bonuses. Blame it all on those 2 banks all you like, but pretty much every bank bitten by the crisis were bitten because they ignored the massive risks those instruments represented. Notice, for instance, how JP Morgan weren't hit very hard. They saw the risks, and passed on the party. As for whatever the last government did, which government was it which deregulated banking to the degree where this could all happen? Clue: not Labour.
I note that you fail to answer my question about what alternative proposals the opposition parties had.

Good kids when it comes to criticising, but not so smart when it came to offering advice.
[quote][p][bold]Georgem[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]George4th[/bold] wrote: The country's finances are in a mess thanks to the last government - and as bad as Greece, Portugal and Ireland in terms of GDP The Council staff have no public sympathy. The Private sector went through all the pain from 3 years ago onwards and without hardly a word! Look at the Public Sector bleating!! If every person working for Southampton Council asked themselves the question "Do I give 100% to my job for the 37 hours I work here" the answers would be interesting! Yes, some naturally work hard but having seen many at first hand, the majority do not! (And many are badly managed)[/p][/quote]Thanks to the last government bailing out the banks and building societies so that houses were not repossessed. Thanks to the last government bailing out local and city councils who invested their money in Icelandic Banks, and would have gone bankrupt without that help. Why was this necessary? Because a couple of banks in the US went 'belly up' for making reckless loans, and the domino effect spread virtually world-wide. Perhaps you could remind us what alternative action the opposition parties proposed at the time to deal with this International financial crisis. Personally, I can't recall them offering any words of advice or a different way of dealing with the problem. Do you remember George4th?[/p][/quote]If it was just a matter of a couple of US banks being reckless, the crisis wouldn't have hit. Fact is, our own banks were more than happy to join in the party, slicing and re-packaging those reckless loans in ever-more-reckless new financial instruments that nobody really understood, in pursuit of bigger bonuses. Blame it all on those 2 banks all you like, but pretty much every bank bitten by the crisis were bitten because they ignored the massive risks those instruments represented. Notice, for instance, how JP Morgan weren't hit very hard. They saw the risks, and passed on the party. As for whatever the last government did, which government was it which deregulated banking to the degree where this could all happen? Clue: not Labour.[/p][/quote]I note that you fail to answer my question about what alternative proposals the opposition parties had. Good kids when it comes to criticising, but not so smart when it came to offering advice. Linesman

9:29pm Mon 16 May 11

Georgem says...

Linesman wrote:
Georgem wrote:
Linesman wrote:
George4th wrote: The country's finances are in a mess thanks to the last government - and as bad as Greece, Portugal and Ireland in terms of GDP The Council staff have no public sympathy. The Private sector went through all the pain from 3 years ago onwards and without hardly a word! Look at the Public Sector bleating!! If every person working for Southampton Council asked themselves the question "Do I give 100% to my job for the 37 hours I work here" the answers would be interesting! Yes, some naturally work hard but having seen many at first hand, the majority do not! (And many are badly managed)
Thanks to the last government bailing out the banks and building societies so that houses were not repossessed. Thanks to the last government bailing out local and city councils who invested their money in Icelandic Banks, and would have gone bankrupt without that help. Why was this necessary? Because a couple of banks in the US went 'belly up' for making reckless loans, and the domino effect spread virtually world-wide. Perhaps you could remind us what alternative action the opposition parties proposed at the time to deal with this International financial crisis. Personally, I can't recall them offering any words of advice or a different way of dealing with the problem. Do you remember George4th?
If it was just a matter of a couple of US banks being reckless, the crisis wouldn't have hit. Fact is, our own banks were more than happy to join in the party, slicing and re-packaging those reckless loans in ever-more-reckless new financial instruments that nobody really understood, in pursuit of bigger bonuses. Blame it all on those 2 banks all you like, but pretty much every bank bitten by the crisis were bitten because they ignored the massive risks those instruments represented. Notice, for instance, how JP Morgan weren't hit very hard. They saw the risks, and passed on the party. As for whatever the last government did, which government was it which deregulated banking to the degree where this could all happen? Clue: not Labour.
I note that you fail to answer my question about what alternative proposals the opposition parties had.

Good kids when it comes to criticising, but not so smart when it came to offering advice.
I didn't fail to, I chose not to. If you bothered to notice, you didn't ask me the question, you asked another poster with a similar name.
[quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Georgem[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]George4th[/bold] wrote: The country's finances are in a mess thanks to the last government - and as bad as Greece, Portugal and Ireland in terms of GDP The Council staff have no public sympathy. The Private sector went through all the pain from 3 years ago onwards and without hardly a word! Look at the Public Sector bleating!! If every person working for Southampton Council asked themselves the question "Do I give 100% to my job for the 37 hours I work here" the answers would be interesting! Yes, some naturally work hard but having seen many at first hand, the majority do not! (And many are badly managed)[/p][/quote]Thanks to the last government bailing out the banks and building societies so that houses were not repossessed. Thanks to the last government bailing out local and city councils who invested their money in Icelandic Banks, and would have gone bankrupt without that help. Why was this necessary? Because a couple of banks in the US went 'belly up' for making reckless loans, and the domino effect spread virtually world-wide. Perhaps you could remind us what alternative action the opposition parties proposed at the time to deal with this International financial crisis. Personally, I can't recall them offering any words of advice or a different way of dealing with the problem. Do you remember George4th?[/p][/quote]If it was just a matter of a couple of US banks being reckless, the crisis wouldn't have hit. Fact is, our own banks were more than happy to join in the party, slicing and re-packaging those reckless loans in ever-more-reckless new financial instruments that nobody really understood, in pursuit of bigger bonuses. Blame it all on those 2 banks all you like, but pretty much every bank bitten by the crisis were bitten because they ignored the massive risks those instruments represented. Notice, for instance, how JP Morgan weren't hit very hard. They saw the risks, and passed on the party. As for whatever the last government did, which government was it which deregulated banking to the degree where this could all happen? Clue: not Labour.[/p][/quote]I note that you fail to answer my question about what alternative proposals the opposition parties had. Good kids when it comes to criticising, but not so smart when it came to offering advice.[/p][/quote]I didn't fail to, I chose not to. If you bothered to notice, you didn't ask me the question, you asked another poster with a similar name. Georgem

9:31pm Mon 16 May 11

sfc3575 says...

Fair play to the council staff who have been left no option but to take industrial action. Its not an easy decision to take as it costs them money and is inconvenient to the public who they serve and they will feel bad about that because believe it or not,they really do care about them. I know, as I have been a union member in a public service company for 25 years and had to take this course of action myself. It takes guts to stand up for yourself and your colleagues and try to protect the service you provide to the public at great financial cost to yourself and family. The problem is, you only hear one part of the story, the one the employers feed to the press. The fact is, the staff are often warned not to speak to the press etc and if they do there can be reprisals at a later date from the employer so you really do only hear one side because of fear. I can remember my union rep give a decent 5 min account of the reasons we were on strike and the edited piece the press quoted was a couple of lines which were out of context too! Finally, too many people think they are above the kind of ordinary people who serve us day to day in our lives. Probably in a well paid job, way above the wage the council staff are trying to live on and having to rely on overtime and other allowances etc to get by, and have probably not really struggled for years, so its easy to say the lower paid should put up with cuts to their jobs / income / service they provide. Have some compassion, get behind them and support them in their action and they might then be able to give you a better service if the employer is forced to come back to the negotiating table and come to a workable realistic agreement which will benefit the staff, employer and public.
Fair play to the council staff who have been left no option but to take industrial action. Its not an easy decision to take as it costs them money and is inconvenient to the public who they serve and they will feel bad about that because believe it or not,they really do care about them. I know, as I have been a union member in a public service company for 25 years and had to take this course of action myself. It takes guts to stand up for yourself and your colleagues and try to protect the service you provide to the public at great financial cost to yourself and family. The problem is, you only hear one part of the story, the one the employers feed to the press. The fact is, the staff are often warned not to speak to the press etc and if they do there can be reprisals at a later date from the employer so you really do only hear one side because of fear. I can remember my union rep give a decent 5 min account of the reasons we were on strike and the edited piece the press quoted was a couple of lines which were out of context too! Finally, too many people think they are above the kind of ordinary people who serve us day to day in our lives. Probably in a well paid job, way above the wage the council staff are trying to live on and having to rely on overtime and other allowances etc to get by, and have probably not really struggled for years, so its easy to say the lower paid should put up with cuts to their jobs / income / service they provide. Have some compassion, get behind them and support them in their action and they might then be able to give you a better service if the employer is forced to come back to the negotiating table and come to a workable realistic agreement which will benefit the staff, employer and public. sfc3575

9:47pm Mon 16 May 11

SpittingMoreFire says...

WELL DONE TUCKER!
.
Excellent statement. You’ve laid out the reasons for the strike action plainly to see, presented and revealed just how hard work council employees work for its citizens, and the failure of the council to negotiate with yourselves (unions) and that they must come back to the table to stop this action.
.
Echo will have trouble making you look a fool with such considered statements, sir. Notice how we have no comment/statement in reaction from the Royston’s spin machine. Pointed that it is difficult to refute your comments; here they keep their heads down
.
Yet the bias by the Echo continues. Here it fails to include the unions’ asking the Government’s arbitration service, ACAS, for help to intervene in this dispute, between the unions and “Royston and Co”. For the Council workers’ representatives calling on ACAS, just shows you that “sheer arrogance” of this council.
.
NAUGHTY ECHO!
WELL DONE TUCKER! . Excellent statement. You’ve laid out the reasons for the strike action plainly to see, presented and revealed just how hard work council employees work for its citizens, and the failure of the council to negotiate with yourselves (unions) and that they must come back to the table to stop this action. . Echo will have trouble making you look a fool with such considered statements, sir. Notice how we have no comment/statement in reaction from the Royston’s spin machine. Pointed that it is difficult to refute your comments; here they keep their heads down . Yet the bias by the Echo continues. Here it fails to include the unions’ asking the Government’s arbitration service, ACAS, for help to intervene in this dispute, between the unions and “Royston and Co”. For the Council workers’ representatives calling on ACAS, just shows you that “sheer arrogance” of this council. . NAUGHTY ECHO! SpittingMoreFire

9:59pm Mon 16 May 11

SpittingMoreFire says...

Spittingfire's quote of note:
.
sfc3575, says:
.
"The problem is, you only hear one part of the story, the one the employers feed to the press.
.
"I can remember my union rep give a decent 5 min account of the reasons we were on strike and the edited piece the press quoted was a couple of lines which were out of context too! "
.
It is up to people such as you and I, to step up to the plate in these comments sections, and present the bits the Echo deliberately misses out.
.
Highlighting those cuts, puts more pressure on them to tell it like it truly is.
Spittingfire's quote of note: . sfc3575, says: . "The problem is, you only hear one part of the story, the one the employers feed to the press. . "I can remember my union rep give a decent 5 min account of the reasons we were on strike and the edited piece the press quoted was a couple of lines which were out of context too! " . It is up to people such as you and I, to step up to the plate in these comments sections, and present the bits the Echo deliberately misses out. . Highlighting those cuts, puts more pressure on them to tell it like it truly is. SpittingMoreFire

10:13pm Mon 16 May 11

jazzi says...

I OFFERED TO PAY A FINE OFF, OFFICE NOT OPEN, NO ONES GOT BACK TO ME AFTER THIS 5 YR ASK LOL, U WANT MY COUNCIL TAX HMMMM COMPUTERS DOWN LOL DONT U WANT PAYING ????
SO IF YOUR ON STRIKE I DONT HAVE TO PAY BUT JUST LATER WITH FINES FOR NOT PAYING GRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR
I OFFERED TO PAY A FINE OFF, OFFICE NOT OPEN, NO ONES GOT BACK TO ME AFTER THIS 5 YR ASK LOL, U WANT MY COUNCIL TAX HMMMM COMPUTERS DOWN LOL DONT U WANT PAYING ???? SO IF YOUR ON STRIKE I DONT HAVE TO PAY BUT JUST LATER WITH FINES FOR NOT PAYING GRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR jazzi

10:15pm Mon 16 May 11

Maine Lobster says...

jazzi wrote:
I OFFERED TO PAY A FINE OFF, OFFICE NOT OPEN, NO ONES GOT BACK TO ME AFTER THIS 5 YR ASK LOL, U WANT MY COUNCIL TAX HMMMM COMPUTERS DOWN LOL DONT U WANT PAYING ????
SO IF YOUR ON STRIKE I DONT HAVE TO PAY BUT JUST LATER WITH FINES FOR NOT PAYING GRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR
The alternative of course is not to get fined and then you won't have to worry about paying it!
[quote][p][bold]jazzi[/bold] wrote: I OFFERED TO PAY A FINE OFF, OFFICE NOT OPEN, NO ONES GOT BACK TO ME AFTER THIS 5 YR ASK LOL, U WANT MY COUNCIL TAX HMMMM COMPUTERS DOWN LOL DONT U WANT PAYING ???? SO IF YOUR ON STRIKE I DONT HAVE TO PAY BUT JUST LATER WITH FINES FOR NOT PAYING GRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR[/p][/quote]The alternative of course is not to get fined and then you won't have to worry about paying it! Maine Lobster

10:22pm Mon 16 May 11

Condor Man says...

Maine Lobster wrote:
Condor Man wrote:
Let them strike, if staff aren't working to HSE regulations they should be sacked anyway. Staff are only stopping car use because the ridiculous allowances they were getting have been stopped and I really hope they stick to the 37 hours per week and accrue no flexitime. SCC needs to stop staff getting in at 7.30 every morning and claiming a day off for spending the first hour chatting.
Once again the ignorance of you armchair critics is astounding. The "ridiculous allowances" you claim are in fact very modest and are for vehicles provided by staff to deliver Council services at a much cheaper rate than that done in the private sector for company car users, for example. Staff who use their cars are contractually required to do so for which their contract of employment agrees to pay them a monthly sum and mileage allowance. Providing a car enables the work to be done at a much more efficient rate than using public transport and at a much cheaper rate than using taxis, as was proved during an industrial dispute over the same issue in 2003. For this allowance, the employee has to make sure the vehicle is available for Council use through regular maintenance, insure it for business purposes at considerable additional cost and often employees have to take out finance to ensure the vehicle they provide will be reliable enough to get the job done. Having done all this, the Council then decides to breach the contract of employment and withdraw the allowance. That's fair and reasonable is it?
Car users have to travel all over the city and sometimes outside of it to visit clients or city residents, often transporting people or equipment in the process. Others work outside of office hours on call out and need their vehicle then. The vehicles also often provide the means of a quick exit when various situations turn nasty. Think about that? Council employees get murdered on duty while visiting client's homes. Remember the care worker in Townhill Park? Had it not been for the ability to search for her car once she was identified as missing, her murder and the perpetrator may not have been aprehended.
The car allowances paid are a part of a national agreement over terms and conditions. The breach of that agreement is what is fundamentally wrong, not those employees who have a right to expect to be paid their contracted terms. To top it all, the cuts in car allowances are in addition to the wages cuts being forced on staff so those employees are often on a cut in salary approaching 9% or 10%, not the "small pay cut" you often see printed as comment in the Daily Echo.
As for your accusation against those who come in early, you ought to know that in many cases this enables them to do far more work in the first hour when the phones are not ringing than through the rest of the working day when the are continual conflicting demands. Many staff work far more hours than they can claim in flexi time so your ill informed and customary sniping over the people who serve this city really holds no credibility.
no private sector employer would offer such benefits. Adding business use to car insurance doesn't cost that much and it's a legal prerequisite for all cars to be roadworthy. Also, not all SCC staff were entitled to essential car allowances so not all were benefitting.

Also, if staff work 'over their hours' how come there's a mass exodus at 4pm?
[quote][p][bold]Maine Lobster[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Condor Man[/bold] wrote: Let them strike, if staff aren't working to HSE regulations they should be sacked anyway. Staff are only stopping car use because the ridiculous allowances they were getting have been stopped and I really hope they stick to the 37 hours per week and accrue no flexitime. SCC needs to stop staff getting in at 7.30 every morning and claiming a day off for spending the first hour chatting.[/p][/quote]Once again the ignorance of you armchair critics is astounding. The "ridiculous allowances" you claim are in fact very modest and are for vehicles provided by staff to deliver Council services at a much cheaper rate than that done in the private sector for company car users, for example. Staff who use their cars are contractually required to do so for which their contract of employment agrees to pay them a monthly sum and mileage allowance. Providing a car enables the work to be done at a much more efficient rate than using public transport and at a much cheaper rate than using taxis, as was proved during an industrial dispute over the same issue in 2003. For this allowance, the employee has to make sure the vehicle is available for Council use through regular maintenance, insure it for business purposes at considerable additional cost and often employees have to take out finance to ensure the vehicle they provide will be reliable enough to get the job done. Having done all this, the Council then decides to breach the contract of employment and withdraw the allowance. That's fair and reasonable is it? Car users have to travel all over the city and sometimes outside of it to visit clients or city residents, often transporting people or equipment in the process. Others work outside of office hours on call out and need their vehicle then. The vehicles also often provide the means of a quick exit when various situations turn nasty. Think about that? Council employees get murdered on duty while visiting client's homes. Remember the care worker in Townhill Park? Had it not been for the ability to search for her car once she was identified as missing, her murder and the perpetrator may not have been aprehended. The car allowances paid are a part of a national agreement over terms and conditions. The breach of that agreement is what is fundamentally wrong, not those employees who have a right to expect to be paid their contracted terms. To top it all, the cuts in car allowances are in addition to the wages cuts being forced on staff so those employees are often on a cut in salary approaching 9% or 10%, not the "small pay cut" you often see printed as comment in the Daily Echo. As for your accusation against those who come in early, you ought to know that in many cases this enables them to do far more work in the first hour when the phones are not ringing than through the rest of the working day when the are continual conflicting demands. Many staff work far more hours than they can claim in flexi time so your ill informed and customary sniping over the people who serve this city really holds no credibility.[/p][/quote]no private sector employer would offer such benefits. Adding business use to car insurance doesn't cost that much and it's a legal prerequisite for all cars to be roadworthy. Also, not all SCC staff were entitled to essential car allowances so not all were benefitting. Also, if staff work 'over their hours' how come there's a mass exodus at 4pm? Condor Man

10:26pm Mon 16 May 11

jazzi says...

The fine was for working for them with their ticket and yet stated outta date at the civic lol They offered me cash payment at this point i kinda worked out SCC ARE A BUNCH of prefab no marks and no use to any1 who lives in SOTON
The fine was for working for them with their ticket and yet stated outta date at the civic lol They offered me cash payment at this point i kinda worked out SCC ARE A BUNCH of prefab no marks and no use to any1 who lives in SOTON jazzi

10:45pm Mon 16 May 11

Maine Lobster says...

Condor Man wrote:
Maine Lobster wrote:
Condor Man wrote:
Let them strike, if staff aren't working to HSE regulations they should be sacked anyway. Staff are only stopping car use because the ridiculous allowances they were getting have been stopped and I really hope they stick to the 37 hours per week and accrue no flexitime. SCC needs to stop staff getting in at 7.30 every morning and claiming a day off for spending the first hour chatting.
Once again the ignorance of you armchair critics is astounding. The "ridiculous allowances" you claim are in fact very modest and are for vehicles provided by staff to deliver Council services at a much cheaper rate than that done in the private sector for company car users, for example. Staff who use their cars are contractually required to do so for which their contract of employment agrees to pay them a monthly sum and mileage allowance. Providing a car enables the work to be done at a much more efficient rate than using public transport and at a much cheaper rate than using taxis, as was proved during an industrial dispute over the same issue in 2003. For this allowance, the employee has to make sure the vehicle is available for Council use through regular maintenance, insure it for business purposes at considerable additional cost and often employees have to take out finance to ensure the vehicle they provide will be reliable enough to get the job done. Having done all this, the Council then decides to breach the contract of employment and withdraw the allowance. That's fair and reasonable is it?
Car users have to travel all over the city and sometimes outside of it to visit clients or city residents, often transporting people or equipment in the process. Others work outside of office hours on call out and need their vehicle then. The vehicles also often provide the means of a quick exit when various situations turn nasty. Think about that? Council employees get murdered on duty while visiting client's homes. Remember the care worker in Townhill Park? Had it not been for the ability to search for her car once she was identified as missing, her murder and the perpetrator may not have been aprehended.
The car allowances paid are a part of a national agreement over terms and conditions. The breach of that agreement is what is fundamentally wrong, not those employees who have a right to expect to be paid their contracted terms. To top it all, the cuts in car allowances are in addition to the wages cuts being forced on staff so those employees are often on a cut in salary approaching 9% or 10%, not the "small pay cut" you often see printed as comment in the Daily Echo.
As for your accusation against those who come in early, you ought to know that in many cases this enables them to do far more work in the first hour when the phones are not ringing than through the rest of the working day when the are continual conflicting demands. Many staff work far more hours than they can claim in flexi time so your ill informed and customary sniping over the people who serve this city really holds no credibility.
no private sector employer would offer such benefits. Adding business use to car insurance doesn't cost that much and it's a legal prerequisite for all cars to be roadworthy. Also, not all SCC staff were entitled to essential car allowances so not all were benefitting.

Also, if staff work 'over their hours' how come there's a mass exodus at 4pm?
No private employer provides company cars or allowances? Absolute rubbish, its prevolent all over private industry. I know people in private business receiving car allowances way above Council levels or have a vehicle provided. Are you seriously suggesting Council employees should provide their vehicles for nothing and be thankful for the opportunity? Business insurance is not a cheap additional option, but regardless of the additional cost it is still a requirement if you are going to use your car for work, but it is certainly not a prerequisite to have business cover for "all cars to be roadworthy." Another wild inaccurate statement.
Some people do leave their Council job at 4,probably because they start early, others are there till much later. The flexi time system allows the Council to provide extended hours that would otherwise not be possible with a rigid working day. The system works to the benefit of the Council and its customers as well as employees.Many services still provide opening hours into the evening or 24 hours. More sweeping statements from you that are just completely false and demonstrate your total lack of knowledge of the wide scope of services provided by your Council.
[quote][p][bold]Condor Man[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Maine Lobster[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Condor Man[/bold] wrote: Let them strike, if staff aren't working to HSE regulations they should be sacked anyway. Staff are only stopping car use because the ridiculous allowances they were getting have been stopped and I really hope they stick to the 37 hours per week and accrue no flexitime. SCC needs to stop staff getting in at 7.30 every morning and claiming a day off for spending the first hour chatting.[/p][/quote]Once again the ignorance of you armchair critics is astounding. The "ridiculous allowances" you claim are in fact very modest and are for vehicles provided by staff to deliver Council services at a much cheaper rate than that done in the private sector for company car users, for example. Staff who use their cars are contractually required to do so for which their contract of employment agrees to pay them a monthly sum and mileage allowance. Providing a car enables the work to be done at a much more efficient rate than using public transport and at a much cheaper rate than using taxis, as was proved during an industrial dispute over the same issue in 2003. For this allowance, the employee has to make sure the vehicle is available for Council use through regular maintenance, insure it for business purposes at considerable additional cost and often employees have to take out finance to ensure the vehicle they provide will be reliable enough to get the job done. Having done all this, the Council then decides to breach the contract of employment and withdraw the allowance. That's fair and reasonable is it? Car users have to travel all over the city and sometimes outside of it to visit clients or city residents, often transporting people or equipment in the process. Others work outside of office hours on call out and need their vehicle then. The vehicles also often provide the means of a quick exit when various situations turn nasty. Think about that? Council employees get murdered on duty while visiting client's homes. Remember the care worker in Townhill Park? Had it not been for the ability to search for her car once she was identified as missing, her murder and the perpetrator may not have been aprehended. The car allowances paid are a part of a national agreement over terms and conditions. The breach of that agreement is what is fundamentally wrong, not those employees who have a right to expect to be paid their contracted terms. To top it all, the cuts in car allowances are in addition to the wages cuts being forced on staff so those employees are often on a cut in salary approaching 9% or 10%, not the "small pay cut" you often see printed as comment in the Daily Echo. As for your accusation against those who come in early, you ought to know that in many cases this enables them to do far more work in the first hour when the phones are not ringing than through the rest of the working day when the are continual conflicting demands. Many staff work far more hours than they can claim in flexi time so your ill informed and customary sniping over the people who serve this city really holds no credibility.[/p][/quote]no private sector employer would offer such benefits. Adding business use to car insurance doesn't cost that much and it's a legal prerequisite for all cars to be roadworthy. Also, not all SCC staff were entitled to essential car allowances so not all were benefitting. Also, if staff work 'over their hours' how come there's a mass exodus at 4pm?[/p][/quote]No private employer provides company cars or allowances? Absolute rubbish, its prevolent all over private industry. I know people in private business receiving car allowances way above Council levels or have a vehicle provided. Are you seriously suggesting Council employees should provide their vehicles for nothing and be thankful for the opportunity? Business insurance is not a cheap additional option, but regardless of the additional cost it is still a requirement if you are going to use your car for work, but it is certainly not a prerequisite to have business cover for "all cars to be roadworthy." Another wild inaccurate statement. Some people do leave their Council job at 4,probably because they start early, others are there till much later. The flexi time system allows the Council to provide extended hours that would otherwise not be possible with a rigid working day. The system works to the benefit of the Council and its customers as well as employees.Many services still provide opening hours into the evening or 24 hours. More sweeping statements from you that are just completely false and demonstrate your total lack of knowledge of the wide scope of services provided by your Council. Maine Lobster

11:02pm Mon 16 May 11

Condor Man says...

Maine Lobster wrote:
Condor Man wrote:
Maine Lobster wrote:
Condor Man wrote:
Let them strike, if staff aren't working to HSE regulations they should be sacked anyway. Staff are only stopping car use because the ridiculous allowances they were getting have been stopped and I really hope they stick to the 37 hours per week and accrue no flexitime. SCC needs to stop staff getting in at 7.30 every morning and claiming a day off for spending the first hour chatting.
Once again the ignorance of you armchair critics is astounding. The "ridiculous allowances" you claim are in fact very modest and are for vehicles provided by staff to deliver Council services at a much cheaper rate than that done in the private sector for company car users, for example. Staff who use their cars are contractually required to do so for which their contract of employment agrees to pay them a monthly sum and mileage allowance. Providing a car enables the work to be done at a much more efficient rate than using public transport and at a much cheaper rate than using taxis, as was proved during an industrial dispute over the same issue in 2003. For this allowance, the employee has to make sure the vehicle is available for Council use through regular maintenance, insure it for business purposes at considerable additional cost and often employees have to take out finance to ensure the vehicle they provide will be reliable enough to get the job done. Having done all this, the Council then decides to breach the contract of employment and withdraw the allowance. That's fair and reasonable is it?
Car users have to travel all over the city and sometimes outside of it to visit clients or city residents, often transporting people or equipment in the process. Others work outside of office hours on call out and need their vehicle then. The vehicles also often provide the means of a quick exit when various situations turn nasty. Think about that? Council employees get murdered on duty while visiting client's homes. Remember the care worker in Townhill Park? Had it not been for the ability to search for her car once she was identified as missing, her murder and the perpetrator may not have been aprehended.
The car allowances paid are a part of a national agreement over terms and conditions. The breach of that agreement is what is fundamentally wrong, not those employees who have a right to expect to be paid their contracted terms. To top it all, the cuts in car allowances are in addition to the wages cuts being forced on staff so those employees are often on a cut in salary approaching 9% or 10%, not the "small pay cut" you often see printed as comment in the Daily Echo.
As for your accusation against those who come in early, you ought to know that in many cases this enables them to do far more work in the first hour when the phones are not ringing than through the rest of the working day when the are continual conflicting demands. Many staff work far more hours than they can claim in flexi time so your ill informed and customary sniping over the people who serve this city really holds no credibility.
no private sector employer would offer such benefits. Adding business use to car insurance doesn't cost that much and it's a legal prerequisite for all cars to be roadworthy. Also, not all SCC staff were entitled to essential car allowances so not all were benefitting.

Also, if staff work 'over their hours' how come there's a mass exodus at 4pm?
No private employer provides company cars or allowances? Absolute rubbish, its prevolent all over private industry. I know people in private business receiving car allowances way above Council levels or have a vehicle provided. Are you seriously suggesting Council employees should provide their vehicles for nothing and be thankful for the opportunity? Business insurance is not a cheap additional option, but regardless of the additional cost it is still a requirement if you are going to use your car for work, but it is certainly not a prerequisite to have business cover for "all cars to be roadworthy." Another wild inaccurate statement.
Some people do leave their Council job at 4,probably because they start early, others are there till much later. The flexi time system allows the Council to provide extended hours that would otherwise not be possible with a rigid working day. The system works to the benefit of the Council and its customers as well as employees.Many services still provide opening hours into the evening or 24 hours. More sweeping statements from you that are just completely false and demonstrate your total lack of knowledge of the wide scope of services provided by your Council.
some SCC staff were being paid over the standard 45p per mile I get + the allowance that few people in the private sector would get. People with company cars are taxed for the privilege and get around 20p per mile.
[quote][p][bold]Maine Lobster[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Condor Man[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Maine Lobster[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Condor Man[/bold] wrote: Let them strike, if staff aren't working to HSE regulations they should be sacked anyway. Staff are only stopping car use because the ridiculous allowances they were getting have been stopped and I really hope they stick to the 37 hours per week and accrue no flexitime. SCC needs to stop staff getting in at 7.30 every morning and claiming a day off for spending the first hour chatting.[/p][/quote]Once again the ignorance of you armchair critics is astounding. The "ridiculous allowances" you claim are in fact very modest and are for vehicles provided by staff to deliver Council services at a much cheaper rate than that done in the private sector for company car users, for example. Staff who use their cars are contractually required to do so for which their contract of employment agrees to pay them a monthly sum and mileage allowance. Providing a car enables the work to be done at a much more efficient rate than using public transport and at a much cheaper rate than using taxis, as was proved during an industrial dispute over the same issue in 2003. For this allowance, the employee has to make sure the vehicle is available for Council use through regular maintenance, insure it for business purposes at considerable additional cost and often employees have to take out finance to ensure the vehicle they provide will be reliable enough to get the job done. Having done all this, the Council then decides to breach the contract of employment and withdraw the allowance. That's fair and reasonable is it? Car users have to travel all over the city and sometimes outside of it to visit clients or city residents, often transporting people or equipment in the process. Others work outside of office hours on call out and need their vehicle then. The vehicles also often provide the means of a quick exit when various situations turn nasty. Think about that? Council employees get murdered on duty while visiting client's homes. Remember the care worker in Townhill Park? Had it not been for the ability to search for her car once she was identified as missing, her murder and the perpetrator may not have been aprehended. The car allowances paid are a part of a national agreement over terms and conditions. The breach of that agreement is what is fundamentally wrong, not those employees who have a right to expect to be paid their contracted terms. To top it all, the cuts in car allowances are in addition to the wages cuts being forced on staff so those employees are often on a cut in salary approaching 9% or 10%, not the "small pay cut" you often see printed as comment in the Daily Echo. As for your accusation against those who come in early, you ought to know that in many cases this enables them to do far more work in the first hour when the phones are not ringing than through the rest of the working day when the are continual conflicting demands. Many staff work far more hours than they can claim in flexi time so your ill informed and customary sniping over the people who serve this city really holds no credibility.[/p][/quote]no private sector employer would offer such benefits. Adding business use to car insurance doesn't cost that much and it's a legal prerequisite for all cars to be roadworthy. Also, not all SCC staff were entitled to essential car allowances so not all were benefitting. Also, if staff work 'over their hours' how come there's a mass exodus at 4pm?[/p][/quote]No private employer provides company cars or allowances? Absolute rubbish, its prevolent all over private industry. I know people in private business receiving car allowances way above Council levels or have a vehicle provided. Are you seriously suggesting Council employees should provide their vehicles for nothing and be thankful for the opportunity? Business insurance is not a cheap additional option, but regardless of the additional cost it is still a requirement if you are going to use your car for work, but it is certainly not a prerequisite to have business cover for "all cars to be roadworthy." Another wild inaccurate statement. Some people do leave their Council job at 4,probably because they start early, others are there till much later. The flexi time system allows the Council to provide extended hours that would otherwise not be possible with a rigid working day. The system works to the benefit of the Council and its customers as well as employees.Many services still provide opening hours into the evening or 24 hours. More sweeping statements from you that are just completely false and demonstrate your total lack of knowledge of the wide scope of services provided by your Council.[/p][/quote]some SCC staff were being paid over the standard 45p per mile I get + the allowance that few people in the private sector would get. People with company cars are taxed for the privilege and get around 20p per mile. Condor Man

11:06pm Mon 16 May 11

Bill-B says...

It really saddens me to see all of these comments downgrading the union workers. Especially coming from the very country that gave birth to the modern day unions. The people of Tolpuddle that gave up their freedoms and some their lives, so that the working man in Great Britain would be treated fairly by the companies they worked for should be turning over in their graves I am afraid that the brave people of Tolpuddle martyred themselves for nought.
It really saddens me to see all of these comments downgrading the union workers. Especially coming from the very country that gave birth to the modern day unions. The people of Tolpuddle that gave up their freedoms and some their lives, so that the working man in Great Britain would be treated fairly by the companies they worked for should be turning over in their graves I am afraid that the brave people of Tolpuddle martyred themselves for nought. Bill-B

11:38pm Mon 16 May 11

Poppy22 says...

Isn't it just typical of unions to ensure that the strike starts with a service critical to the public - ie waste collection. This is no doubt an effort to try to "blackmail" the public into supporting the striking workers' cause but these days it does the exact opposite. I suggest Southampton Council residents just take their waste to the nearest union offices and dump it there! In fact, do it as a collective protest now; don't wait for the strike to start (I wonder how the unions would like that!).
As for personal car use, as someone else has said, business use insurance can be obtained cheaply (free without much looking around) and allowances in the public sector are perhaps now being dropped to what they are in the private sector? Very few 40p per mile mileage allowances there any more; more like 18p or other amounts which don't even cover petrol costs. If public sector employees don't want to use their cars for business use then don't apply for the jobs that say use of a personal car is required (I've seen that lots of times in council job ads). Council wages are very competitive now; having looked at lots of council job ads over the last few years I'd even say the pay rates are higher than comparable jobs in the private sector across the board (where else in the world can a refuse collector or other unskilled worker earn as much as a graduate or experienced senior administrator/secret
ary in the private sector?!). Sorry, still no sympathy for the public sector and definitely no sympathy for any strike action. Holding the public to ransom won't achieve anything. Now, on the other hand, if the Council wants to appoint people to cover the jobs that aren't being done during strike action, I'm sure there would be many takers from former private sector workers who have found themselves on the "scrap heap" (often not the first time) due to major cutbacks, age, etc. The public sector just don't know they're born!
Isn't it just typical of unions to ensure that the strike starts with a service critical to the public - ie waste collection. This is no doubt an effort to try to "blackmail" the public into supporting the striking workers' cause but these days it does the exact opposite. I suggest Southampton Council residents just take their waste to the nearest union offices and dump it there! In fact, do it as a collective protest now; don't wait for the strike to start (I wonder how the unions would like that!). As for personal car use, as someone else has said, business use insurance can be obtained cheaply (free without much looking around) and allowances in the public sector are perhaps now being dropped to what they are in the private sector? Very few 40p per mile mileage allowances there any more; more like 18p or other amounts which don't even cover petrol costs. If public sector employees don't want to use their cars for business use then don't apply for the jobs that say use of a personal car is required (I've seen that lots of times in council job ads). Council wages are very competitive now; having looked at lots of council job ads over the last few years I'd even say the pay rates are higher than comparable jobs in the private sector across the board (where else in the world can a refuse collector or other unskilled worker earn as much as a graduate or experienced senior administrator/secret ary in the private sector?!). Sorry, still no sympathy for the public sector and definitely no sympathy for any strike action. Holding the public to ransom won't achieve anything. Now, on the other hand, if the Council wants to appoint people to cover the jobs that aren't being done during strike action, I'm sure there would be many takers from former private sector workers who have found themselves on the "scrap heap" (often not the first time) due to major cutbacks, age, etc. The public sector just don't know they're born! Poppy22

11:55pm Mon 16 May 11

Condor Man says...

Bill-B wrote:
It really saddens me to see all of these comments downgrading the union workers. Especially coming from the very country that gave birth to the modern day unions. The people of Tolpuddle that gave up their freedoms and some their lives, so that the working man in Great Britain would be treated fairly by the companies they worked for should be turning over in their graves I am afraid that the brave people of Tolpuddle martyred themselves for nought.
Unions made the fatal error of backing unproductive staff in the past, demanding wage rises when not all staff were pulling their weight etc. Sadly they met an opponent in Margaret Thatcher that decided to destroy them because she got fed up of being held to ransom. Unions need more professional management and an ethos based on reconciliation rather than confrontation.
[quote][p][bold]Bill-B[/bold] wrote: It really saddens me to see all of these comments downgrading the union workers. Especially coming from the very country that gave birth to the modern day unions. The people of Tolpuddle that gave up their freedoms and some their lives, so that the working man in Great Britain would be treated fairly by the companies they worked for should be turning over in their graves I am afraid that the brave people of Tolpuddle martyred themselves for nought.[/p][/quote]Unions made the fatal error of backing unproductive staff in the past, demanding wage rises when not all staff were pulling their weight etc. Sadly they met an opponent in Margaret Thatcher that decided to destroy them because she got fed up of being held to ransom. Unions need more professional management and an ethos based on reconciliation rather than confrontation. Condor Man

2:35am Tue 17 May 11

Lumavich1984 says...

The Killer, Southampton!!! Your Talk C**P Mate! If you really knew the REAL in's and out's of what is happening regards to cut backs, wage cuts etc, then we might aswell join the rest of the bums out there and go live on benefits! Southampton City Council Go On Strike, it will Hit Hard on the Public and the Back Bone of the City will come to a stand still! Traffic Lights go out, who reports them? Schools have no teacher for being on strike = kids at home, general maintenance to properties put on hold, i can go on and on!
The Killer, Southampton!!! Your Talk C**P Mate! If you really knew the REAL in's and out's of what is happening regards to cut backs, wage cuts etc, then we might aswell join the rest of the bums out there and go live on benefits! Southampton City Council Go On Strike, it will Hit Hard on the Public and the Back Bone of the City will come to a stand still! Traffic Lights go out, who reports them? Schools have no teacher for being on strike = kids at home, general maintenance to properties put on hold, i can go on and on! Lumavich1984

6:27am Tue 17 May 11

SpittingMoreFire says...

Condor Man wrote:
Bill-B wrote:
It really saddens me to see all of these comments downgrading the union workers. Especially coming from the very country that gave birth to the modern day unions. The people of Tolpuddle that gave up their freedoms and some their lives, so that the working man in Great Britain would be treated fairly by the companies they worked for should be turning over in their graves I am afraid that the brave people of Tolpuddle martyred themselves for nought.
Unions made the fatal error of backing unproductive staff in the past, demanding wage rises when not all staff were pulling their weight etc. Sadly they met an opponent in Margaret Thatcher that decided to destroy them because she got fed up of being held to ransom. Unions need more professional management and an ethos based on reconciliation rather than confrontation.
Your post is spot on CM.
.
Also you mention: "Unions need more professional management and an ethos based on reconciliation rather than confrontation." - very true.
.
But at last Tucker's statement attempts to do just that. He's taken the opportunity of this UNISON announcement well and presented to the public that disruption can be halted/avoided if the council return to the table. He shows the unions’ door is open, but the council’s door is currently closed.
.
SO BACK YOU GO ROYSTON! - Our caring Conservative - BACK YOU MUST GO!
.
Why are you putting us all though this?
.
(Just because you frittered our money and assets on that atrocious Sea City Museum, for one. Touch ironic too, that you've violated the Civic Centre with that abomination. Your workers will forever recoil in horror at that sight - it's certainly got a WOW factor, it's a symbol remembering these terrible times).
.
The Echo here also fails to mention the number of workers reputed to be taking this short-of-strike action: some 2,500 UNISON and UNITE members. another choicest cut by the Daily Echo. Goodness knows what how tatty the rag is going to look tomorrow with all these cuts.
[quote][p][bold]Condor Man[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Bill-B[/bold] wrote: It really saddens me to see all of these comments downgrading the union workers. Especially coming from the very country that gave birth to the modern day unions. The people of Tolpuddle that gave up their freedoms and some their lives, so that the working man in Great Britain would be treated fairly by the companies they worked for should be turning over in their graves I am afraid that the brave people of Tolpuddle martyred themselves for nought.[/p][/quote]Unions made the fatal error of backing unproductive staff in the past, demanding wage rises when not all staff were pulling their weight etc. Sadly they met an opponent in Margaret Thatcher that decided to destroy them because she got fed up of being held to ransom. Unions need more professional management and an ethos based on reconciliation rather than confrontation.[/p][/quote]Your post is spot on CM. . Also you mention: "Unions need more professional management and an ethos based on reconciliation rather than confrontation." - very true. . But at last Tucker's statement attempts to do just that. He's taken the opportunity of this UNISON announcement well and presented to the public that disruption can be halted/avoided if the council return to the table. He shows the unions’ door is open, but the council’s door is currently closed. . SO BACK YOU GO ROYSTON! - Our caring Conservative - BACK YOU MUST GO! . Why are you putting us all though this? . (Just because you frittered our money and assets on that atrocious Sea City Museum, for one. Touch ironic too, that you've violated the Civic Centre with that abomination. Your workers will forever recoil in horror at that sight - it's certainly got a WOW factor, it's a symbol remembering these terrible times). . The Echo here also fails to mention the number of workers reputed to be taking this short-of-strike action: some 2,500 UNISON and UNITE members. another choicest cut by the Daily Echo. Goodness knows what how tatty the rag is going to look tomorrow with all these cuts. SpittingMoreFire

6:34am Tue 17 May 11

Ant Smoking MP says...

This is a justified legal dispute against a Council Leader who is on a personal crusade against unions. All this talk of a privileged public sector is barmy beyond belief. A lot of unproven inaccurate comments on here made by the usual suspects to back up a Tory council leadership living on borrowed time.
.
If people are worried about their rubbish then I notice both the St Denys and Dean Road Tory clubs have big car park to put it in.
.
The Unions are doing their best job under the circumstances and I hope the action they take, very reluctant in some circumstances bring the Tories back to the table so they can talk sensiblythrough negotiation rather than dictating their political ideaology their employees.
.
Its the mad unecessary cutbacks brought on by the government that is causing this. The private sector over the last three years had to make cutbacks brought on by a bankers crisis. The situation the council is in is entirely different and man made by mad Tory economics!!
This is a justified legal dispute against a Council Leader who is on a personal crusade against unions. All this talk of a privileged public sector is barmy beyond belief. A lot of unproven inaccurate comments on here made by the usual suspects to back up a Tory council leadership living on borrowed time. . If people are worried about their rubbish then I notice both the St Denys and Dean Road Tory clubs have big car park to put it in. . The Unions are doing their best job under the circumstances and I hope the action they take, very reluctant in some circumstances bring the Tories back to the table so they can talk sensiblythrough negotiation rather than dictating their political ideaology their employees. . Its the mad unecessary cutbacks brought on by the government that is causing this. The private sector over the last three years had to make cutbacks brought on by a bankers crisis. The situation the council is in is entirely different and man made by mad Tory economics!! Ant Smoking MP

6:36am Tue 17 May 11

Ant Smoking MP says...

Condor Man wrote:
Ant Smoking MP wrote:
Condor Man wrote:
Let them strike, if staff aren't working to HSE regulations they should be sacked anyway. Staff are only stopping car use because the ridiculous allowances they were getting have been stopped and I really hope they stick to the 37 hours per week and accrue no flexitime. SCC needs to stop staff getting in at 7.30 every morning and claiming a day off for spending the first hour chatting.
Absolute rubbish!!
.
Regarding HSE regulations, the article says "Working to STRICTLY COMPLY with Health and Safety regulations."
.
What part of "strictly apply" dont you understand?
surely they should be doing that anyway? I'm afraid sympathy just isn't there.
They should. but that is not how you read it!! You read it as saying they wouldnt be working to HSE regs. Dont give up your day job!!
[quote][p][bold]Condor Man[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ant Smoking MP[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Condor Man[/bold] wrote: Let them strike, if staff aren't working to HSE regulations they should be sacked anyway. Staff are only stopping car use because the ridiculous allowances they were getting have been stopped and I really hope they stick to the 37 hours per week and accrue no flexitime. SCC needs to stop staff getting in at 7.30 every morning and claiming a day off for spending the first hour chatting.[/p][/quote]Absolute rubbish!! . Regarding HSE regulations, the article says "Working to STRICTLY COMPLY with Health and Safety regulations." . What part of "strictly apply" dont you understand?[/p][/quote]surely they should be doing that anyway? I'm afraid sympathy just isn't there.[/p][/quote]They should. but that is not how you read it!! You read it as saying they wouldnt be working to HSE regs. Dont give up your day job!! Ant Smoking MP

6:40am Tue 17 May 11

Ant Smoking MP says...

SpittingMoreFire wrote:
Condor Man wrote:
Bill-B wrote:
It really saddens me to see all of these comments downgrading the union workers. Especially coming from the very country that gave birth to the modern day unions. The people of Tolpuddle that gave up their freedoms and some their lives, so that the working man in Great Britain would be treated fairly by the companies they worked for should be turning over in their graves I am afraid that the brave people of Tolpuddle martyred themselves for nought.
Unions made the fatal error of backing unproductive staff in the past, demanding wage rises when not all staff were pulling their weight etc. Sadly they met an opponent in Margaret Thatcher that decided to destroy them because she got fed up of being held to ransom. Unions need more professional management and an ethos based on reconciliation rather than confrontation.
Your post is spot on CM.
.
Also you mention: "Unions need more professional management and an ethos based on reconciliation rather than confrontation." - very true.
.
But at last Tucker's statement attempts to do just that. He's taken the opportunity of this UNISON announcement well and presented to the public that disruption can be halted/avoided if the council return to the table. He shows the unions’ door is open, but the council’s door is currently closed.
.
SO BACK YOU GO ROYSTON! - Our caring Conservative - BACK YOU MUST GO!
.
Why are you putting us all though this?
.
(Just because you frittered our money and assets on that atrocious Sea City Museum, for one. Touch ironic too, that you've violated the Civic Centre with that abomination. Your workers will forever recoil in horror at that sight - it's certainly got a WOW factor, it's a symbol remembering these terrible times).
.
The Echo here also fails to mention the number of workers reputed to be taking this short-of-strike action: some 2,500 UNISON and UNITE members. another choicest cut by the Daily Echo. Goodness knows what how tatty the rag is going to look tomorrow with all these cuts.
Thats right. It is the councils refusal to negotiate to resolve this that is the problem. Also their amateurish mismanagement of the consultation which because of their politically/idealogi
cally driven arrogance will land the suffering public with £million bill!!Now that is something that wouldnt have happened in the private sector!!
[quote][p][bold]SpittingMoreFire[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Condor Man[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Bill-B[/bold] wrote: It really saddens me to see all of these comments downgrading the union workers. Especially coming from the very country that gave birth to the modern day unions. The people of Tolpuddle that gave up their freedoms and some their lives, so that the working man in Great Britain would be treated fairly by the companies they worked for should be turning over in their graves I am afraid that the brave people of Tolpuddle martyred themselves for nought.[/p][/quote]Unions made the fatal error of backing unproductive staff in the past, demanding wage rises when not all staff were pulling their weight etc. Sadly they met an opponent in Margaret Thatcher that decided to destroy them because she got fed up of being held to ransom. Unions need more professional management and an ethos based on reconciliation rather than confrontation.[/p][/quote]Your post is spot on CM. . Also you mention: "Unions need more professional management and an ethos based on reconciliation rather than confrontation." - very true. . But at last Tucker's statement attempts to do just that. He's taken the opportunity of this UNISON announcement well and presented to the public that disruption can be halted/avoided if the council return to the table. He shows the unions’ door is open, but the council’s door is currently closed. . SO BACK YOU GO ROYSTON! - Our caring Conservative - BACK YOU MUST GO! . Why are you putting us all though this? . (Just because you frittered our money and assets on that atrocious Sea City Museum, for one. Touch ironic too, that you've violated the Civic Centre with that abomination. Your workers will forever recoil in horror at that sight - it's certainly got a WOW factor, it's a symbol remembering these terrible times). . The Echo here also fails to mention the number of workers reputed to be taking this short-of-strike action: some 2,500 UNISON and UNITE members. another choicest cut by the Daily Echo. Goodness knows what how tatty the rag is going to look tomorrow with all these cuts.[/p][/quote]Thats right. It is the councils refusal to negotiate to resolve this that is the problem. Also their amateurish mismanagement of the consultation which because of their politically/idealogi cally driven arrogance will land the suffering public with £million bill!!Now that is something that wouldnt have happened in the private sector!! Ant Smoking MP

6:42am Tue 17 May 11

SpittingMoreFire says...

Poppy22 wrote:
Isn't it just typical of unions to ensure that the strike starts with a service critical to the public - ie waste collection. This is no doubt an effort to try to "blackmail" the public into supporting the striking workers' cause but these days it does the exact opposite. I suggest Southampton Council residents just take their waste to the nearest union offices and dump it there! In fact, do it as a collective protest now; don't wait for the strike to start (I wonder how the unions would like that!).
As for personal car use, as someone else has said, business use insurance can be obtained cheaply (free without much looking around) and allowances in the public sector are perhaps now being dropped to what they are in the private sector? Very few 40p per mile mileage allowances there any more; more like 18p or other amounts which don't even cover petrol costs. If public sector employees don't want to use their cars for business use then don't apply for the jobs that say use of a personal car is required (I've seen that lots of times in council job ads). Council wages are very competitive now; having looked at lots of council job ads over the last few years I'd even say the pay rates are higher than comparable jobs in the private sector across the board (where else in the world can a refuse collector or other unskilled worker earn as much as a graduate or experienced senior administrator/secret

ary in the private sector?!). Sorry, still no sympathy for the public sector and definitely no sympathy for any strike action. Holding the public to ransom won't achieve anything. Now, on the other hand, if the Council wants to appoint people to cover the jobs that aren't being done during strike action, I'm sure there would be many takers from former private sector workers who have found themselves on the "scrap heap" (often not the first time) due to major cutbacks, age, etc. The public sector just don't know they're born!
Hello Poppy22, a dose more daftness from you again ;)
.
You mention here that in halting waste collection services the public are being “blackmailed” by the unions into supporting their members’ position.
.
As you point out using the refuse collection service as the front line of strike action has been shown to be and will be a tetchy one in terms of public sympathy – you already seem rather upset by it, so “calm down, dear!” to quote Flashman Dave. But as you say, it is the service we all rely on and so it does finally publicise the gravity to all citizens, this council/workers’ dispute.
.
But it will be the slow down/halting of the city’s parking services will be pressuring the council. Hitting the stealth tax profit margins detrimentally is the shrewd card to play. They’ll have less profit to play with/waste on their various schemes in future. Plus, no wardens on the prowl will certainly go down well with the public, there’s no question of that.
.
Tucker as his members’ spokesman, needs to continue to come out with further irrefutable and considered statements, that are difficult to manipulate in the press, and hard for Royston to counteract. Tucker has achieved this in his statement yesterday; they can stop this strike action now if negotiations continue with an end to an agreeable solution.
.
So back to the table, ROY OLD BOY! And where are your comments, sir? I am eagerly waiting to see what the Doctor has spun out next for your current, perilous affliction.
.
Poppy22 you say, “Holding the public to ransom won't achieve anything” – holding your council workers’ to ransom – in forcing them to sign new, worse contracts - will not achieve anything either.
.
[quote][p][bold]Poppy22[/bold] wrote: Isn't it just typical of unions to ensure that the strike starts with a service critical to the public - ie waste collection. This is no doubt an effort to try to "blackmail" the public into supporting the striking workers' cause but these days it does the exact opposite. I suggest Southampton Council residents just take their waste to the nearest union offices and dump it there! In fact, do it as a collective protest now; don't wait for the strike to start (I wonder how the unions would like that!). As for personal car use, as someone else has said, business use insurance can be obtained cheaply (free without much looking around) and allowances in the public sector are perhaps now being dropped to what they are in the private sector? Very few 40p per mile mileage allowances there any more; more like 18p or other amounts which don't even cover petrol costs. If public sector employees don't want to use their cars for business use then don't apply for the jobs that say use of a personal car is required (I've seen that lots of times in council job ads). Council wages are very competitive now; having looked at lots of council job ads over the last few years I'd even say the pay rates are higher than comparable jobs in the private sector across the board (where else in the world can a refuse collector or other unskilled worker earn as much as a graduate or experienced senior administrator/secret ary in the private sector?!). Sorry, still no sympathy for the public sector and definitely no sympathy for any strike action. Holding the public to ransom won't achieve anything. Now, on the other hand, if the Council wants to appoint people to cover the jobs that aren't being done during strike action, I'm sure there would be many takers from former private sector workers who have found themselves on the "scrap heap" (often not the first time) due to major cutbacks, age, etc. The public sector just don't know they're born![/p][/quote]Hello Poppy22, a dose more daftness from you again ;) . You mention here that in halting waste collection services the public are being “blackmailed” by the unions into supporting their members’ position. . As you point out using the refuse collection service as the front line of strike action has been shown to be and will be a tetchy one in terms of public sympathy – you already seem rather upset by it, so “calm down, dear!” to quote Flashman Dave. But as you say, it is the service we all rely on and so it does finally publicise the gravity to all citizens, this council/workers’ dispute. . But it will be the slow down/halting of the city’s parking services will be pressuring the council. Hitting the stealth tax profit margins detrimentally is the shrewd card to play. They’ll have less profit to play with/waste on their various schemes in future. Plus, no wardens on the prowl will certainly go down well with the public, there’s no question of that. . Tucker as his members’ spokesman, needs to continue to come out with further irrefutable and considered statements, that are difficult to manipulate in the press, and hard for Royston to counteract. Tucker has achieved this in his statement yesterday; they can stop this strike action now if negotiations continue with an end to an agreeable solution. . So back to the table, ROY OLD BOY! And where are your comments, sir? I am eagerly waiting to see what the Doctor has spun out next for your current, perilous affliction. . Poppy22 you say, “Holding the public to ransom won't achieve anything” – holding your council workers’ to ransom – in forcing them to sign new, worse contracts - will not achieve anything either. . SpittingMoreFire

7:04am Tue 17 May 11

SpittingMoreFire says...

Ant Smoking MP wrote:
SpittingMoreFire wrote:
Condor Man wrote:
Bill-B wrote:
It really saddens me to see all of these comments downgrading the union workers. Especially coming from the very country that gave birth to the modern day unions. The people of Tolpuddle that gave up their freedoms and some their lives, so that the working man in Great Britain would be treated fairly by the companies they worked for should be turning over in their graves I am afraid that the brave people of Tolpuddle martyred themselves for nought.
Unions made the fatal error of backing unproductive staff in the past, demanding wage rises when not all staff were pulling their weight etc. Sadly they met an opponent in Margaret Thatcher that decided to destroy them because she got fed up of being held to ransom. Unions need more professional management and an ethos based on reconciliation rather than confrontation.
Your post is spot on CM.
.
Also you mention: "Unions need more professional management and an ethos based on reconciliation rather than confrontation." - very true.
.
But at last Tucker's statement attempts to do just that. He's taken the opportunity of this UNISON announcement well and presented to the public that disruption can be halted/avoided if the council return to the table. He shows the unions’ door is open, but the council’s door is currently closed.
.
SO BACK YOU GO ROYSTON! - Our caring Conservative - BACK YOU MUST GO!
.
Why are you putting us all though this?
.
(Just because you frittered our money and assets on that atrocious Sea City Museum, for one. Touch ironic too, that you've violated the Civic Centre with that abomination. Your workers will forever recoil in horror at that sight - it's certainly got a WOW factor, it's a symbol remembering these terrible times).
.
The Echo here also fails to mention the number of workers reputed to be taking this short-of-strike action: some 2,500 UNISON and UNITE members. another choicest cut by the Daily Echo. Goodness knows what how tatty the rag is going to look tomorrow with all these cuts.
Thats right. It is the councils refusal to negotiate to resolve this that is the problem. Also their amateurish mismanagement of the consultation which because of their politically/idealogi

cally driven arrogance will land the suffering public with £million bill!!Now that is something that wouldnt have happened in the private sector!!
Most certainly Ant Smoking MP. Most certainly, indeed.
.
I am stumped at these Conservatives from the lodge of bodge, all of the time. They continually fail in their ideologies to deliver for the city. They don't practice what they preach.
.
Even down to the most basics: checking over a document (recall Royston and Moulton's have a heart letter to the Government) before you sign your life away on it. This embarrassment would never occur in the private sector.
.
I am forming the opinion that Southampton must have the most incompetent, and terrible Tories in Britain. I really can't think of others anywhere else in local government who are quite as poor performers as this lot.
.
It is quite shocking.
It is so embarrassing.
And it is utterly damning.
[quote][p][bold]Ant Smoking MP[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]SpittingMoreFire[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Condor Man[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Bill-B[/bold] wrote: It really saddens me to see all of these comments downgrading the union workers. Especially coming from the very country that gave birth to the modern day unions. The people of Tolpuddle that gave up their freedoms and some their lives, so that the working man in Great Britain would be treated fairly by the companies they worked for should be turning over in their graves I am afraid that the brave people of Tolpuddle martyred themselves for nought.[/p][/quote]Unions made the fatal error of backing unproductive staff in the past, demanding wage rises when not all staff were pulling their weight etc. Sadly they met an opponent in Margaret Thatcher that decided to destroy them because she got fed up of being held to ransom. Unions need more professional management and an ethos based on reconciliation rather than confrontation.[/p][/quote]Your post is spot on CM. . Also you mention: "Unions need more professional management and an ethos based on reconciliation rather than confrontation." - very true. . But at last Tucker's statement attempts to do just that. He's taken the opportunity of this UNISON announcement well and presented to the public that disruption can be halted/avoided if the council return to the table. He shows the unions’ door is open, but the council’s door is currently closed. . SO BACK YOU GO ROYSTON! - Our caring Conservative - BACK YOU MUST GO! . Why are you putting us all though this? . (Just because you frittered our money and assets on that atrocious Sea City Museum, for one. Touch ironic too, that you've violated the Civic Centre with that abomination. Your workers will forever recoil in horror at that sight - it's certainly got a WOW factor, it's a symbol remembering these terrible times). . The Echo here also fails to mention the number of workers reputed to be taking this short-of-strike action: some 2,500 UNISON and UNITE members. another choicest cut by the Daily Echo. Goodness knows what how tatty the rag is going to look tomorrow with all these cuts.[/p][/quote]Thats right. It is the councils refusal to negotiate to resolve this that is the problem. Also their amateurish mismanagement of the consultation which because of their politically/idealogi cally driven arrogance will land the suffering public with £million bill!!Now that is something that wouldnt have happened in the private sector!![/p][/quote]Most certainly Ant Smoking MP. Most certainly, indeed. . I am stumped at these Conservatives from the lodge of bodge, all of the time. They continually fail in their ideologies to deliver for the city. They don't practice what they preach. . Even down to the most basics: checking over a document (recall Royston and Moulton's have a heart letter to the Government) before you sign your life away on it. This embarrassment would never occur in the private sector. . I am forming the opinion that Southampton must have the most incompetent, and terrible Tories in Britain. I really can't think of others anywhere else in local government who are quite as poor performers as this lot. . It is quite shocking. It is so embarrassing. And it is utterly damning. SpittingMoreFire

8:02am Tue 17 May 11

MSK says...

Potentially good news for Biffa or similar companies.
.
Contract out the rubbish collection service, which will be run by an efficient and lean private sector operator, and save the council more money and hassle.
Potentially good news for Biffa or similar companies. . Contract out the rubbish collection service, which will be run by an efficient and lean private sector operator, and save the council more money and hassle. MSK

8:52am Tue 17 May 11

Linesman says...

Georgem wrote:
Linesman wrote:
Georgem wrote:
Linesman wrote:
George4th wrote: The country's finances are in a mess thanks to the last government - and as bad as Greece, Portugal and Ireland in terms of GDP The Council staff have no public sympathy. The Private sector went through all the pain from 3 years ago onwards and without hardly a word! Look at the Public Sector bleating!! If every person working for Southampton Council asked themselves the question "Do I give 100% to my job for the 37 hours I work here" the answers would be interesting! Yes, some naturally work hard but having seen many at first hand, the majority do not! (And many are badly managed)
Thanks to the last government bailing out the banks and building societies so that houses were not repossessed. Thanks to the last government bailing out local and city councils who invested their money in Icelandic Banks, and would have gone bankrupt without that help. Why was this necessary? Because a couple of banks in the US went 'belly up' for making reckless loans, and the domino effect spread virtually world-wide. Perhaps you could remind us what alternative action the opposition parties proposed at the time to deal with this International financial crisis. Personally, I can't recall them offering any words of advice or a different way of dealing with the problem. Do you remember George4th?
If it was just a matter of a couple of US banks being reckless, the crisis wouldn't have hit. Fact is, our own banks were more than happy to join in the party, slicing and re-packaging those reckless loans in ever-more-reckless new financial instruments that nobody really understood, in pursuit of bigger bonuses. Blame it all on those 2 banks all you like, but pretty much every bank bitten by the crisis were bitten because they ignored the massive risks those instruments represented. Notice, for instance, how JP Morgan weren't hit very hard. They saw the risks, and passed on the party. As for whatever the last government did, which government was it which deregulated banking to the degree where this could all happen? Clue: not Labour.
I note that you fail to answer my question about what alternative proposals the opposition parties had. Good kids when it comes to criticising, but not so smart when it came to offering advice.
I didn't fail to, I chose not to. If you bothered to notice, you didn't ask me the question, you asked another poster with a similar name.
My apologies. I note that, while you chose not to answer, your namesake appeared not to have the answer.
[quote][p][bold]Georgem[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Georgem[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]George4th[/bold] wrote: The country's finances are in a mess thanks to the last government - and as bad as Greece, Portugal and Ireland in terms of GDP The Council staff have no public sympathy. The Private sector went through all the pain from 3 years ago onwards and without hardly a word! Look at the Public Sector bleating!! If every person working for Southampton Council asked themselves the question "Do I give 100% to my job for the 37 hours I work here" the answers would be interesting! Yes, some naturally work hard but having seen many at first hand, the majority do not! (And many are badly managed)[/p][/quote]Thanks to the last government bailing out the banks and building societies so that houses were not repossessed. Thanks to the last government bailing out local and city councils who invested their money in Icelandic Banks, and would have gone bankrupt without that help. Why was this necessary? Because a couple of banks in the US went 'belly up' for making reckless loans, and the domino effect spread virtually world-wide. Perhaps you could remind us what alternative action the opposition parties proposed at the time to deal with this International financial crisis. Personally, I can't recall them offering any words of advice or a different way of dealing with the problem. Do you remember George4th?[/p][/quote]If it was just a matter of a couple of US banks being reckless, the crisis wouldn't have hit. Fact is, our own banks were more than happy to join in the party, slicing and re-packaging those reckless loans in ever-more-reckless new financial instruments that nobody really understood, in pursuit of bigger bonuses. Blame it all on those 2 banks all you like, but pretty much every bank bitten by the crisis were bitten because they ignored the massive risks those instruments represented. Notice, for instance, how JP Morgan weren't hit very hard. They saw the risks, and passed on the party. As for whatever the last government did, which government was it which deregulated banking to the degree where this could all happen? Clue: not Labour.[/p][/quote]I note that you fail to answer my question about what alternative proposals the opposition parties had. Good kids when it comes to criticising, but not so smart when it came to offering advice.[/p][/quote]I didn't fail to, I chose not to. If you bothered to notice, you didn't ask me the question, you asked another poster with a similar name.[/p][/quote]My apologies. I note that, while you chose not to answer, your namesake appeared not to have the answer. Linesman

8:59am Tue 17 May 11

Big Mac says...

No rubbish collections? Southampton will end up resembling Naples in a matter of weeks whilst the mafia stronghold of the south coast continues to strengthen and prosper!

The revolution is gaining momentum.
No rubbish collections? Southampton will end up resembling Naples in a matter of weeks whilst the mafia stronghold of the south coast continues to strengthen and prosper! The revolution is gaining momentum. Big Mac

12:57pm Tue 17 May 11

George4th says...

Linesman wrote:
George4th wrote:
The country's finances are in a mess thanks to the last government - and as bad as Greece, Portugal and Ireland in terms of GDP The Council staff have no public sympathy. The Private sector went through all the pain from 3 years ago onwards and without hardly a word! Look at the Public Sector bleating!! If every person working for Southampton Council asked themselves the question "Do I give 100% to my job for the 37 hours I work here" the answers would be interesting! Yes, some naturally work hard but having seen many at first hand, the majority do not! (And many are badly managed)
Thanks to the last government bailing out the banks and building societies so that houses were not repossessed.

Thanks to the last government bailing out local and city councils who invested their money in Icelandic Banks, and would have gone bankrupt without that help.

Why was this necessary?

Because a couple of banks in the US went 'belly up' for making reckless loans, and the domino effect spread virtually world-wide.

Perhaps you could remind us what alternative action the opposition parties proposed at the time to deal with this International financial crisis.

Personally, I can't recall them offering any words of advice or a different way of dealing with the problem.

Do you remember George4th?
For the record, the economy in this country was already in decline well before the global financial crisis. And the deficit was already running out of control. The global financial crisis just made it worse.

Quote
"On banking regulation, the parliamentary record shows that Mr Cable was concerned with the irresponsible lending policies of banks to consumers. The point is best illustrated by this extended quote from his response to the Queen’s Speech in December 2003:

“The Chancellor's great claim—which has been vindicated so far, and for which he deserves credit—is that the old economy of boom and bust has gone. However, it has reappeared in a new form. There is a massive boom in credit and debt expansion, and in the housing market.

“A very dangerously unstable position has developed, based on excessive and irresponsible lending by the banking system.

“Something is seriously wrong when a reputable bank, like the Royal Bank of Scotland, can send out a gold card with a £10,000 credit limit to a dog called Monty.”

On another occasion in 2003 he asked Gordon Brown about banking regulation:

“Can the Chancellor confirm that one of the objectives of risk-based regulation… is the prevention of dangerous booms and busts in bank lending? Will he therefore explain why, at a national level, no one is taking responsibility for the often reckless debt promotion by the leading banks and credit card companies?

“The Government and the regulators are either blind or asleep where the banks are concerned,” he added.
Unquote

Also backed up by Ken Clarke!

Anyway, the government should have realised something was amiss when Building Companies pretty much stopped building properties! BEFORE the global financial crisis!
[quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]George4th[/bold] wrote: The country's finances are in a mess thanks to the last government - and as bad as Greece, Portugal and Ireland in terms of GDP The Council staff have no public sympathy. The Private sector went through all the pain from 3 years ago onwards and without hardly a word! Look at the Public Sector bleating!! If every person working for Southampton Council asked themselves the question "Do I give 100% to my job for the 37 hours I work here" the answers would be interesting! Yes, some naturally work hard but having seen many at first hand, the majority do not! (And many are badly managed)[/p][/quote]Thanks to the last government bailing out the banks and building societies so that houses were not repossessed. Thanks to the last government bailing out local and city councils who invested their money in Icelandic Banks, and would have gone bankrupt without that help. Why was this necessary? Because a couple of banks in the US went 'belly up' for making reckless loans, and the domino effect spread virtually world-wide. Perhaps you could remind us what alternative action the opposition parties proposed at the time to deal with this International financial crisis. Personally, I can't recall them offering any words of advice or a different way of dealing with the problem. Do you remember George4th?[/p][/quote]For the record, the economy in this country was already in decline well before the global financial crisis. And the deficit was already running out of control. The global financial crisis just made it worse. Quote "On banking regulation, the parliamentary record shows that Mr Cable was concerned with the irresponsible lending policies of banks to consumers. The point is best illustrated by this extended quote from his response to the Queen’s Speech in December 2003: “The Chancellor's great claim—which has been vindicated so far, and for which he deserves credit—is that the old economy of boom and bust has gone. However, it has reappeared in a new form. There is a massive boom in credit and debt expansion, and in the housing market. “A very dangerously unstable position has developed, based on excessive and irresponsible lending by the banking system. “Something is seriously wrong when a reputable bank, like the Royal Bank of Scotland, can send out a gold card with a £10,000 credit limit to a dog called Monty.” On another occasion in 2003 he asked Gordon Brown about banking regulation: “Can the Chancellor confirm that one of the objectives of risk-based regulation… is the prevention of dangerous booms and busts in bank lending? Will he therefore explain why, at a national level, no one is taking responsibility for the often reckless debt promotion by the leading banks and credit card companies? “The Government and the regulators are either blind or asleep where the banks are concerned,” he added. Unquote Also backed up by Ken Clarke! Anyway, the government should have realised something was amiss when Building Companies pretty much stopped building properties! BEFORE the global financial crisis! George4th

1:12pm Tue 17 May 11

George4th says...

Modern day unions are over staffed with people whose purpose does not directly help the worker in terms of pay and conditions. Their decline has forced them into mergers and they still retain too many staff!
They jump at any opportunity to dance up and down and wave their arms about to justify their existence!

The Private sector took a big hit from 3 years ago while salary, pensions etc increased in the Public sector!
The Private sector took the BIG hit.
Now the Public sector must take the hit!
Modern day unions are over staffed with people whose purpose does not directly help the worker in terms of pay and conditions. Their decline has forced them into mergers and they still retain too many staff! They jump at any opportunity to dance up and down and wave their arms about to justify their existence! The Private sector took a big hit from 3 years ago while salary, pensions etc increased in the Public sector! The Private sector took the BIG hit. Now the Public sector must take the hit! George4th

1:46pm Tue 17 May 11

sfc3575 says...

Any unions existence is to represent the views of the membership, as simple as that. Without unions, employers and managers would undoubtedly take advantage of employees , perhaps favouring some employees they like and using their positions of power to firing those they dont. Ask around your friends who work for company's without a union or who's employers refuse to recognise a union. The contractual terms and conditions are vastly different. A union is simply the workers voice that engages management through a representative. Union meetings, of which I have attended many, are the public space to debate amongst fellow workers various proposals from management. After this said debate we relay to management our majority voted opinion and usually we meet the managements proposal somewhere in the middle. Everybody's happy and we all move on together. This is part of living in a democratic society, its what all the 'grown-ups' do in Parliament every day!! Seriously though, I hope the council leaders engage the union swiftly, make a workable realistic agreement between themselves and then the workers can vote on it,then get back to doing the job they obviously enjoy,serving the general public once more in their various roles.
Any unions existence is to represent the views of the membership, as simple as that. Without unions, employers and managers would undoubtedly take advantage of employees , perhaps favouring some employees they like and using their positions of power to firing those they dont. Ask around your friends who work for company's without a union or who's employers refuse to recognise a union. The contractual terms and conditions are vastly different. A union is simply the workers voice that engages management through a representative. Union meetings, of which I have attended many, are the public space to debate amongst fellow workers various proposals from management. After this said debate we relay to management our majority voted opinion and usually we meet the managements proposal somewhere in the middle. Everybody's happy and we all move on together. This is part of living in a democratic society, its what all the 'grown-ups' do in Parliament every day!! Seriously though, I hope the council leaders engage the union swiftly, make a workable realistic agreement between themselves and then the workers can vote on it,then get back to doing the job they obviously enjoy,serving the general public once more in their various roles. sfc3575

2:11pm Tue 17 May 11

southy says...

Big Mac wrote:
No rubbish collections? Southampton will end up resembling Naples in a matter of weeks whilst the mafia stronghold of the south coast continues to strengthen and prosper!

The revolution is gaining momentum.
UK General Strike on the 30th june.


George4th, said "The Private sector took a big hit from 3 years ago"
Thats there problem if they all joined a Union then there Bosses would not be able to walk over them so easy, and you be on better pay do less hours, better working conditions.
[quote][p][bold]Big Mac[/bold] wrote: No rubbish collections? Southampton will end up resembling Naples in a matter of weeks whilst the mafia stronghold of the south coast continues to strengthen and prosper! The revolution is gaining momentum.[/p][/quote]UK General Strike on the 30th june. George4th, said "The Private sector took a big hit from 3 years ago" Thats there problem if they all joined a Union then there Bosses would not be able to walk over them so easy, and you be on better pay do less hours, better working conditions. southy

2:40pm Tue 17 May 11

George4th says...

southy wrote:
Big Mac wrote:
No rubbish collections? Southampton will end up resembling Naples in a matter of weeks whilst the mafia stronghold of the south coast continues to strengthen and prosper!

The revolution is gaining momentum.
UK General Strike on the 30th june.


George4th, said "The Private sector took a big hit from 3 years ago"
Thats there problem if they all joined a Union then there Bosses would not be able to walk over them so easy, and you be on better pay do less hours, better working conditions.
Southy

The point being is that they took it in a positive way with lots of "thinking outside the box". Many of the workers and employers found ways of keeping people from being made redundant - without Union help! - Positive thinking!

Look how many people have been employed in the last year!!

Positive is not a word I apply to the Public Sector!

The Public sector is a drain on our economy and it needs to be more accountable and efficient.

The Unions strangled this country for far too long and slowed our growth to almost nil and made us uncompetitive, allowing the rest of the world to catch up and overtake us!

A thriving economy should benefit us all however, the last government proved that a thriving economy doesn’t benefit all - their incompetence denies our children and our old and infirm to a poorer future as a consequence of their actions.
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Big Mac[/bold] wrote: No rubbish collections? Southampton will end up resembling Naples in a matter of weeks whilst the mafia stronghold of the south coast continues to strengthen and prosper! The revolution is gaining momentum.[/p][/quote]UK General Strike on the 30th june. George4th, said "The Private sector took a big hit from 3 years ago" Thats there problem if they all joined a Union then there Bosses would not be able to walk over them so easy, and you be on better pay do less hours, better working conditions.[/p][/quote]Southy The point being is that they took it in a positive way with lots of "thinking outside the box". Many of the workers and employers found ways of keeping people from being made redundant - without Union help! - Positive thinking! Look how many people have been employed in the last year!! Positive is not a word I apply to the Public Sector! The Public sector is a drain on our economy and it needs to be more accountable and efficient. The Unions strangled this country for far too long and slowed our growth to almost nil and made us uncompetitive, allowing the rest of the world to catch up and overtake us! A thriving economy should benefit us all however, the last government proved that a thriving economy doesn’t benefit all - their incompetence denies our children and our old and infirm to a poorer future as a consequence of their actions. George4th

8:08pm Tue 17 May 11

Georgem says...

Linesman wrote:
Georgem wrote:
Linesman wrote:
Georgem wrote:
Linesman wrote:
George4th wrote: The country's finances are in a mess thanks to the last government - and as bad as Greece, Portugal and Ireland in terms of GDP The Council staff have no public sympathy. The Private sector went through all the pain from 3 years ago onwards and without hardly a word! Look at the Public Sector bleating!! If every person working for Southampton Council asked themselves the question "Do I give 100% to my job for the 37 hours I work here" the answers would be interesting! Yes, some naturally work hard but having seen many at first hand, the majority do not! (And many are badly managed)
Thanks to the last government bailing out the banks and building societies so that houses were not repossessed. Thanks to the last government bailing out local and city councils who invested their money in Icelandic Banks, and would have gone bankrupt without that help. Why was this necessary? Because a couple of banks in the US went 'belly up' for making reckless loans, and the domino effect spread virtually world-wide. Perhaps you could remind us what alternative action the opposition parties proposed at the time to deal with this International financial crisis. Personally, I can't recall them offering any words of advice or a different way of dealing with the problem. Do you remember George4th?
If it was just a matter of a couple of US banks being reckless, the crisis wouldn't have hit. Fact is, our own banks were more than happy to join in the party, slicing and re-packaging those reckless loans in ever-more-reckless new financial instruments that nobody really understood, in pursuit of bigger bonuses. Blame it all on those 2 banks all you like, but pretty much every bank bitten by the crisis were bitten because they ignored the massive risks those instruments represented. Notice, for instance, how JP Morgan weren't hit very hard. They saw the risks, and passed on the party. As for whatever the last government did, which government was it which deregulated banking to the degree where this could all happen? Clue: not Labour.
I note that you fail to answer my question about what alternative proposals the opposition parties had. Good kids when it comes to criticising, but not so smart when it came to offering advice.
I didn't fail to, I chose not to. If you bothered to notice, you didn't ask me the question, you asked another poster with a similar name.
My apologies. I note that, while you chose not to answer, your namesake appeared not to have the answer.
No worries, it's all his fault for stealing my name. I'm George the second.
[quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Georgem[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Georgem[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]George4th[/bold] wrote: The country's finances are in a mess thanks to the last government - and as bad as Greece, Portugal and Ireland in terms of GDP The Council staff have no public sympathy. The Private sector went through all the pain from 3 years ago onwards and without hardly a word! Look at the Public Sector bleating!! If every person working for Southampton Council asked themselves the question "Do I give 100% to my job for the 37 hours I work here" the answers would be interesting! Yes, some naturally work hard but having seen many at first hand, the majority do not! (And many are badly managed)[/p][/quote]Thanks to the last government bailing out the banks and building societies so that houses were not repossessed. Thanks to the last government bailing out local and city councils who invested their money in Icelandic Banks, and would have gone bankrupt without that help. Why was this necessary? Because a couple of banks in the US went 'belly up' for making reckless loans, and the domino effect spread virtually world-wide. Perhaps you could remind us what alternative action the opposition parties proposed at the time to deal with this International financial crisis. Personally, I can't recall them offering any words of advice or a different way of dealing with the problem. Do you remember George4th?[/p][/quote]If it was just a matter of a couple of US banks being reckless, the crisis wouldn't have hit. Fact is, our own banks were more than happy to join in the party, slicing and re-packaging those reckless loans in ever-more-reckless new financial instruments that nobody really understood, in pursuit of bigger bonuses. Blame it all on those 2 banks all you like, but pretty much every bank bitten by the crisis were bitten because they ignored the massive risks those instruments represented. Notice, for instance, how JP Morgan weren't hit very hard. They saw the risks, and passed on the party. As for whatever the last government did, which government was it which deregulated banking to the degree where this could all happen? Clue: not Labour.[/p][/quote]I note that you fail to answer my question about what alternative proposals the opposition parties had. Good kids when it comes to criticising, but not so smart when it came to offering advice.[/p][/quote]I didn't fail to, I chose not to. If you bothered to notice, you didn't ask me the question, you asked another poster with a similar name.[/p][/quote]My apologies. I note that, while you chose not to answer, your namesake appeared not to have the answer.[/p][/quote]No worries, it's all his fault for stealing my name. I'm George the second. Georgem

7:45am Fri 20 May 11

NotConvinced!! says...

Roystons own words - even after the staff pay cuts he's STILL going to make 400 redundant in 2 years time (even though he won't be around)

"Secondly it will save 400 jobs over the next two years in the local authority meaning no Libraries, Leisure Centres or Sure Start Centres will close and we will keep collecting our bins weekly.
Thirdly, we have to save £25 million this year rising to £65 million in year four. By keeping 400 jobs in the organisation we will buy ourselves time. We will in effect give ourselves another two years for people to move on through retirement or a career change thereby avoiding more compulsory redundancies than is absolutely necessary."

He lied to you about the photos in his newsletter and he's lying about these wage cuts saving jobs. GET HIM OUT!

Good luck to the strikers, don't make it easy for the weasel.
Roystons own words - even after the staff pay cuts he's STILL going to make 400 redundant in 2 years time (even though he won't be around) "Secondly it will save 400 jobs over the next two years in the local authority meaning no Libraries, Leisure Centres or Sure Start Centres will close and we will keep collecting our bins weekly. Thirdly, we have to save £25 million this year rising to £65 million in year four. By keeping 400 jobs in the organisation we will buy ourselves time. We will in effect give ourselves another two years for people to move on through retirement or a career change thereby avoiding more compulsory redundancies than is absolutely necessary." He lied to you about the photos in his newsletter and he's lying about these wage cuts saving jobs. GET HIM OUT! Good luck to the strikers, don't make it easy for the weasel. NotConvinced!!

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree